Another Danoff Car Purchase Thread - FX35 Purchased

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danoff
  • 303 comments
  • 19,533 views
YSSMAN
I didn't see any when I drove into the Hyundai dealer today, but perhaps I'll go back and check as I hunt down the i30 I saw today...
Click to expand...

Your city isn't major enough then. ;)
 
Danoff, I suggest you completely forget about driving a Del Sol. Unless God is looking down upon you and you happen to run across a VTEC model (I tried for two months), the experience will be utterly horrible. Playskool uses higher-quality plastics than Honda did in the interior. The lack of chassis rigidity really is alarming. And any or the engines below the VTEC's B16 are anemic. Even so, the reason you always see Honda guys dressed in T-shirts is because Civics are T-shirt cars. Del Sols were cool when they were new, but not at least 12 years later. There is absolutely nothing to be desired of them anymore, unless you're a Honda freak like me and want to turbo one of the base models or impress your Honda homies with your B-series Sol.

They're also ridiculously overpriced for what they are, like all high-end versions of Civics and Integras. And do you or your wife really want to deal with ricer fly-bys all the time? Because it happens, like, all the time.
 
All of them. If they don't yet, they will. It's just normal wear, and replacing the window and roof seals costs enough to make you wish you bought a car that doesn't leak.
 
Keef
Danoff, I suggest you completely forget about driving a Del Sol. Unless God is looking down upon you and you happen to run across a VTEC model (I tried for two months), the experience will be utterly horrible. Playskool uses higher-quality plastics than Honda did in the interior. The lack of chassis rigidity really is alarming. And any or the engines below the VTEC's B16 are anemic.
Click to expand...

Good good. That's what I want to hear. Hopefully the experience will be utterly horrific and I can stop hearing about how "cute" they are and how much she wants one.
 
You could always cut the roof off an Insight and say "just as good," right?
 
Time to dig this thread out of the dust.

The wife basically decided that the Z was the way to go - and that she didn't want it to be hers since she didn't want to drive a stick. Basically she just wanted one of us to have it and since it was her turn to get a car and we didn't need more than a two-seater, she figured she should go for it.

But she's over that now, and has relegated the two-seater purchase to me - which means a manual Z is probably in my future. What she has decided is that she needs a Luxury AWD SUV - preferably as small as possible. We drove an '05 RX 330, a Rav-4 (which we would have to deck out and remove the spare tire), and an '07 RDX.

'05 Lexus RX 330

👎 This SUV sucked. We both hate wood inside of cars, and we both hate loose, non-communicative steering. This car had both. Absolutely terrible, which is a shame because it has a perfect exterior for the job.

'10 Toyota Rav-4

Not bad. The steering was way better than the RX - which is odd given that its the same company. The interior was a bit cheap, but they didn't have one decked out with everything we'd get. Still, you basically have to buy this thing brand new to get the option without the spare wheel (as best I can tell), which greatly jacks up the price. It was also a bit underpowered.

'07 Acura RDX (Tech)

Wow. This SUV was awesome. It took a bit of willpower not to purchase it on the spot (and the salesman recognized this). The power was there, turbo lag was not generally noticeable. The transmission was smooth, the ride was great. The thing pretended it was a sportscar going around turns. I could hardly believe it. Not too big, not too small, has the right look (pretends it's an MDX)... overall it's fantastic.

The model we drove was one with a sat nav system, which is unacceptable (I'm not paying for that). It also had fake wood accents which were an "accessory" that was unacceptable. After a little shopping around on autotrader it appears I can pick up a certified pre-owned copy for about $25k and 30k mi... which is just about right.

Other Cars That We Might Not Test Drive Given the RDX Experience

- XC90
- X3
- Mazda C-whatever-it-is
- Murano
- MDX
- FX (the wife hates them anyway)
 
Don't bother with the X3. Do try the CX7 or CX9 (I'm not familiar with the RDX, so I don't know which is in the same class).
 
Toronado
They are both bigger. The RDX is a CR-V with an Acura shield and a laggy turbo-4.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't buy that for a second. I've been told the CR-V is out based on styling, but I seriously doubt that it can handle like the RDX does. I'm sure it doesn't have the punch that the non-laggy turbo-4 did.
 
I was talking size class. Not platforms or anything like that.

Also, I confused the RDX with the CX-7, so retract the lag statement.
 
Last edited:
I really liked the CX-9/CX-7 when I sat in them. Have no idea how they drive or what it's like to use their controls and stuff though.
 
It's alleged that the CX-7 is, typically of Mazda, probably the best driving car in its class. However, this is somewhat akin to being the best offroader in a class of sportsbikes.
 
Yeah, I've heard pretty good things about the CX-7. If I was in the market for a small SUV, it's the one I'd personally get.

I'd never heard of the RDX before this thread but it doesn't seem too bad. Looks okay and I'm sure it'd be a great ownership proposition.

However, I'd also test one of these:

Danoff
- Murano
Click to expand...

Most reviews I've read of the Murano have been quite positive. It looks pretty cool, the interior is supposed to be quite nice (it's very 350/370Z in there) and the engine (which is also a re-tuned Z unit) is supposed to be great too. Handling isn't supposed to be at CX-7 levels but apparently it's nice enough.
 
Famine
It's alleged that the CX-7 is, typically of Mazda, probably the best driving car in its class. However, this is somewhat akin to being the best offroader in a class of sportsbikes.
Click to expand...

As if any of these cars is actually any good for serious off-roading, anyway... (yeah, I have taken the CR-V off-road, but I'd still prefer something with a decent low-range box and locking differentials.)

On that note... no Subarus?
 
Muranos are a little bit more maintenance-intensive (not necessarily unreliable) compared to an RDX, but check with ///M-Spec (they had one). I drove an RDX once, and although fully aware of the CR-V background on it (not a bad thing), it seems to do the job and fit all your goodies. If you do not want a factory navigation system, you have to lose the "Technology" package, in parlance of Acura/Honda.

People really like their Honda Pilots, if you want something a stitch larger, and less feminine-looking (for those trips to Home Depot and the like). Basically, a poor-man's Acura MDX.

I haven't done the rounds on the CX-7s, as most are under 30,000 miles. The only fault I regularly see is that they eat tires quicker than any other small-ute I've encountered (10-20k miles on a set!). But if you are positively astounded by the way any vehicle handles, that's a sign that you'll get to know your tire salesman on a first-name basis.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
But she's over that now, and has relegated the two-seater purchase to me - which means a manual Z is probably in my future.
Click to expand...
Wish I had that problem. If my wife gave me her car it would be a Yaris.

What she has decided is that she needs a Luxury AWD SUV - preferably as small as possible. We drove an '05 RX 330, a Rav-4 (which we would have to deck out and remove the spare tire), and an '07 RDX.
Click to expand...
I will ask the same thing I asked my mom when she bought one. Why? But I am of the school of thought that Luxury and SUV have no place next to each other.

'05 Lexus RX 330

👎 This SUV sucked. We both hate wood inside of cars, and we both hate loose, non-communicative steering. This car had both. Absolutely terrible, which is a shame because it has a perfect exterior for the job.
Click to expand...
And this is what my mom bought. She loves it, but she is closing in on 60. I drove it once and I agree with everything you said here. She showed me all the bells and whistles when she bought it and I was impressed by it, but then she had surgery on her foot and asked me to drive her somewhere and I was instantly turned off.

I haven't had any experience with the others on your list. The only other small SUVs I have touched have been a Kia Sportage (run away!) and my best friend's CR-V. Well, it's his wife's but he loves driving it.
 
I've driven a CX7 before. It felt different than a Tahoe, but it sure as hell didn't feel like a 3. Call it a sporty minivan. I see no reason to own one unless you want to make the turbo engine wicked fast. If I were to buy something AWD with cargo space I'd probably jump on an Outback or a Forester.

But then, if you want something sporty...

cc33969.jpg
[/IMG]

That be an FX35. Not really any reason to get the big honking V8, as the V6 makes tons of power and sounds just like a Z.

Something new...

2010_Cadillac_SRX_Turbo.jpg


I've been seeing them around and they catch my attention every time. Very distinctive styling, they look great in person, and turbos are sweet.
 
FoolKiller
I will ask the same thing I asked my mom when she bought one. Why? But I am of the school of thought that Luxury and SUV have no place next to each other.
Click to expand...

This is why the CUV was invented...

Also, does it have to be a CUV? What about wagons? They actually are as sporty as cars (because they are cars) and still haul tons of junk. You lose out in owning the current fad car, as lame as they are, and gain tons of awesome. I'd look at the 3-Series and A4 for wagons. Anything else isn't going to be very "luxury," unless you go bigger.
 
FoolKiller
I will ask the same thing I asked my mom when she bought one. Why? But I am of the school of thought that Luxury and SUV have no place next to each other.
Click to expand...

It's a good question, and one that I don't think has a particularly good answer. She wants AWD for ski trips, an interior compartment for the dogs that can be separated to control the hair, something that we can fit longer or taller items in, and decent power for highway passing. That certainly doesn't rule out a wagon. For all I know, perhaps minivans even come with AWD. The only thing ruling out wagons or minivans is styling. Personally, I like the looks of this:


audi-a3.jpg


But she does not. And this is always a big sticking point with her - the car has to have the right look. I have to admit, the same is true for me... I just happen to like a few wagons (no minivans though).

Keef
That be an FX35. Not really any reason to get the big honking V8, as the V6 makes tons of power and sounds just like a Z.
Click to expand...

Yea I've tried to talk her into the FX for some time now. I pointed one out, she said "yuck". I pointed out out a few days later thinking she'd forget about the earlier one and I get "I already said yuck". I asked her about it again a month later and she said "looks to manly". The only thing I don't like about the FX is that it appears to me that the rear window doesn't open. Not a big fan of that since it's a handy way to tote super-long items. That's probably a slight knock against many wagons too.

Philly
Also, does it have to be a CUV? What about wagons? They actually are as sporty as cars (because they are cars) and still haul tons of junk. You lose out in owning the current fad car, as lame as they are, and gain tons of awesome. I'd look at the 3-Series and A4 for wagons. Anything else isn't going to be very "luxury," unless you go bigger.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
homeforsummer
It looks pretty cool, the interior is supposed to be quite nice (it's very 350/370Z in there) and the engine (which is also a re-tuned Z unit) is supposed to be great too. Handling isn't supposed to be at CX-7 levels but apparently it's nice enough.
Click to expand...


Does not compute. 370z, yes.
 
Holy cow, Keef beat me to the Cadillac SRX nomination. It is definitely one of the better options in the class, that is, if you're willing to pay that much for a top-notch GM vehicle. The even better news is that you can save a crap ton on money and pick up a 2009 Cadillac SRX, based on the previous-gen CTS, and still have an excellent crossover that somehow managed to get better with time.


However, I would recommend this as well:

2009-VW-Tiguan.jpg

2010 VW Tiguan

So, its basically a VW GTI on stilts. They're actually pretty cheap too. Go for it.
 
Toronado
He was saying "interior is quite nice" and "its like a 350Z" don't belong in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

And don't get me wrong, it's better than a lot of cars, but it's middle of the road at best. For someone who cares about those sorts of things than its not gonna cut it.
 
YSSMAN
Holy cow, Keef beat me to the Cadillac SRX nomination. It is definitely one of the better options in the class, that is, if you're willing to pay that much for a top-notch GM vehicle.
Click to expand...
Thing is, you have to be willing to pay for a GM vehicle. And even then the only one worth getting if you couldn't find a 2009 model on clearance starts at nearly $50,000.
 
Very true. If its got a Chevy badge on the hood, the performance of the 3.0L can be deemed somewhat acceptable... But not in a Caddy. All of that being said, the local dealer has a 2005 SRX V8 on the shelf for $22K. Only 33,000 miles on the clock, looks like its in pretty good shape. But, as I recall, this was before the interior refresh, and before a lot of the wiggles got worked out. I wouldn't want to play that dance until 2007+ I'm afraid. They've got this 2007 V6 model over in Lansing for $26K, and generally speaking, it isn't that much of a loss if you drop two cylinders.

Frankly, its amazing that the old SRX remained that relevant for that long. Its also a shame that GM didn't continue the trend by basing the SRX on the current CTS. Ah well, can't win 'em all.
 

Latest Posts

Back