Another Danoff Car Purchase Thread - FX35 Purchased

[niky]

But it's a Toyota! Brake pedal of death and all of that... [/sarcasm]

Not a bad idea...

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm just wondering how it took any of us so long to think of the FJ. Awesome things. I might hire one for a bit next time I'm in Dubai.

I've driven the car it's based on though, the Landcruiser V6. Decent performance (acceleration is better than my MX5) and the mildly tuned one in the FJ sounds great too. Drives okay as long as you don't expect it to be even slightly sporty, but then the FJ might be a better on-roader than the Landcruiser is. Nice ride though and quality is absolutely top-notch.

 

[Tornado]

I don't see how the FJ Cruiser slots into the same market niche as "Acura RDX, Mazda CX7, BMW X3."

 

[niky]

Since it is body-on-frame, it really isn't, but it's roughly the right size, the right engine and the right price. Probably might not ride as well on road as an RDX or CX7, but some of the other cars named in the discussion don't, anyway.

Interesting left-field choice. And given Toyota's current troubles, will probably be going for fire-sale prices.

 

[///M-Spec]

It was asked in earnest. Not out of a sense of obligation to satisfy you - which I'm quite confident you know I don't have - but out of a sense of curiosity.

The comment was rhetorical.

Let's face it, the job is to get back and forth to work, everything else is a nice bonus, and honestly the best too for the job is a motorcycle. Cheap, fuel efficient, parks anywhere, and in California they can even split traffic.

But that's not a logical extension of my argument. With a bike, you give up comfort, safety and practicality for the sake of frugality (as well as performance). This is a function vs. function trade off.

With the SUV argument you are trading functionality for looks. That's a different proposition.

I just have a very low threshold of willingness to throw away functionality just to have something look good.

We don't buy the best tool for the job. We buy a good tool for the job that has a bunch of other less tangible bonuses and try not to compromise too much along the way. We buy extra seats because we might need them on occasion. We buy hatchbacks, all-wheel-drive, airbags, navigation systems, etc. because they might come in handy... rarely. But primarily the car does a very simple task - it gets you down a well known road to the same destination every day. The ultimate purchase is based on where you rank all of those features.

That's a fair argument and I wouldn't disagree with that. I think where we diverge is where you and I are willing to draw the line. I have a hard time abiding by an across the board loss in functionality just to look good. You can. It's your money, spend it as you see fit. All I can do is try to appeal to your sensibilities

Re: FJ Cruiser

Speaking of intangibles, I really like the way this thing looks. It manages to look nearly as tough as an H2, but without the hulking, brutish stupidity all civie Hummers seem to exude.

It's a good suggestion, but I don't think it would qualify as "luxurious" by a long shot.

I can count the number of those I've seen in person on both of my hands. Have they really sold all that well? Or do they just do such a good job of blending in that no one notices they're there?

I don't know how they're selling, but I haven't seen many EXs around here either. If they don't succeed, that would be a shame. It looks like a nice car.


M

 

[Famine]

Re: FJ Cruiser

Speaking of intangibles, I really like the way this thing looks. It manages to look nearly as tough as an H2, but without the hulking, brutish stupidity all civie Hummers seem to exude.

It's a good suggestion, but I don't think it would qualify as "luxurious" by a long shot.

Probably not on the inside - though you could probably spec one to the hilt and still get it for less than the sticker start price. But every journey has a sense of theatre/er.

We pulled up at the Venetian in Vegas in one, and the valets were tripping over each other to park it

 

[Danoff]

The budget is probably about $30k btw. Up to 30k miles too. Here's how things stand.

The List (test driven cars are in order of current rank)

- RDX (test-drove, awesome)
- CX-7 (test drove, nice, a little low on accel compared to RDX, handling not as good as RDX either)
- Murano (test drove '06 and '09. '06 horrific. '09 not bad)
- Rav-4 (test drove, would have to buy new... $$)
- RX (test-drove - handling)

- MDX
- Tribeca
- XC90
- XC70
- Q5
- A3
- S4 Avant
- EX35 (She likes the looks but price could be a problem)

- Tiguan (styling - though she showed some weakness)
- X3 (too small)
- X5 (not enough for the $$)
- CX-9 (prefer CX-7)
- Venza (styling)
- FX (styling )
- Grand Cherokee (bailout)
- Flex (Ford)
- SRX (bailout)
- CR-V (styling)
- Touareg (styling)
- Cayenne ($$, I found one and only one listed in our price range)
- FJ (sorry Famine, more safari than luxury)
- H3 (see above)

Eliminated Categories
- Any company that received bailout money.
- Wagons (except the EX)
- Non-AWD Vehicles
- Ford
- Anything with wood in it (except the EX)

Looked at some EX's in person today and despite the fact that she hates the FX, she was really excited about the EX exterior. The interior left something to be desired with the trademark infiniti analog clock (yuck) and wood trim (yuck). The trunk was a little on the small side for housing dogs too. The big problem with the EX is finding them used. Infiniti sales rep says they sell lots of them, but for some reason I don't see any used. They introduced the model in '08 too, which makes it that much more difficult to find. Still, this is a very viable option. We didn't test drive it under the assumption that it drives extremely well and we didn't have access to the '08 - which would be the one we'd have to get.

Thanks for all the suggestions folks, they help.

 

[Tornado]

I suggest that the next car you test be the XC90.

 

[Famine]

FJ (sorry Famine, more safari than luxury)

Yeah, but you know what they say. Safari... so good.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

XC90 gets my vote as well. XC60 is just pointless cash cow like X3.

 

[homeforsummer]

I suggest that the next car you test be the XC90.

Followed by the Q5 which is absolutely wonderful inside. Would definitely fulfil the luxury requirement. However, I reckon it's smaller inside than the BMW X3, and if that's too small then perhaps you'd best cross the Q5 off the list too. Personally I thought the X3 had pretty reasonable space inside though. It's at least as big as the Tiguan and surely the CX-7 too.

I think I'd just go for the RDX. It looks like the best you'll get on that list given that you've eliminated most of the other options.

 

[///M-Spec]

Hmmm. Autotrader.com is showing 38 AWD '08 EX35s within 100 miles of me. When I plugged in your area, it only showed a bunch of RWD EXs.

Which makes sense, since most people in CA doesn't want or need AWD. Maybe you need to expand your search. Buying a car long distance can be a royal pain, but if it gets you want you want...

Incidentally, some dealers will be willing to do the paperwork via. fax and ship you the car. I've heard it adds around $500 to the price. So you could conceivably buy a car in the northeast and have it trucked out to you.

EXs can ordered with either the wood trim or optional black lacquer and aluminum trim. And I'm sure some Nissan tuner will sell you an oil temp or boost gauge to replace that clock with

Here's one without the wood. CLICK

I suggest that the next car you test be the XC90.

My dad has one of these with the T5 motor. It's slow, ponderous and not at all interesting to drive. But built like Cheyenne Mountain. I don't think its what they're looking for.


M

 

[Keef]

As for the FJ, there's one of those guys that parks his purple one at Starbucks every single day. He has a kayak and cargo boxes on the top, and they're always there. Every time. The truck is always perfectly clean. If you saw the guy you'd see how he always walks fast, has his sunglasses on at night, wears the tight exercise outfits, etc. One of those guys.

I've got a serious stigma against FJs because I've never personally seen one dirty. They're basically the same as an H2 to me. People get them to grab attention and generally be douches. As a matter of fact, I think I passed one in the snow the other day in the RX7.

EDIT: Have you seen how large the new MDX is? I support getting the old one. They're reasonable. But the new one is like a damn Expedition.

 

[homeforsummer]

As for the FJ, there's one of those guys that parks his purple one at Starbucks every single day. He has a kayak and cargo boxes on the top, and they're always there. Every time. The truck is always perfectly clean. If you saw the guy you'd see how he always walks fast, has his sunglasses on at night, wears the tight exercise outfits, etc. One of those guys.

I've got a serious stigma against FJs because I've never personally seen one dirty. They're basically the same as an H2 to me. People get them to grab attention and generally be douches. As a matter of fact, I think I passed one in the snow the other day in the RX7.

For every douche using one in the States to get his latte from Starbucks, there's another guy doing this with one in Dubai:

 

[Famine]

Oh, I can see how they'd appeal to "those" people. But you should see the crap my friends' one gets put through. He's military, though I cannot tell you exactly in what context save that he's employed by the Royal Navy and is stationed at an airforce base outside Las Vegas. His is also slightly modified for abuse as well.

Their other car, for reference, is a 1995 Miata

 

[Tornado]

My dad has one of these with the T5 motor. It's slow, ponderous and not at all interesting to drive. But built like Cheyenne Mountain. I don't think its what they're looking for.

For 30 grand he might be able to get one that is a year old or so with the V8, though. It wouldn't be the RDX, but it would be better than the B9 Tribeca or MDX.

 

[Danoff]

Buying a car long distance can be a royal pain, but if it gets you want you want...

I talked to the guy at the mazda dealership about that in order to find us an AWD CX-7. He mentioned that it's a little tougher to buy from out-of-state because of California emissions. Not impossible, just more difficult.

 

[Duke]

On that list I would buy the S4 Avant in a heartbeat and stop looking. Hands down. In fact, there isn't even a second place that I'd be interested in out of all those cars.

My boss/coworker has an RDX and while it beats the crap out of the comparable Lexus and Infiniti, it's still not that exciting to ride in or drive. He also drives it several hundred miles a week on nice freeways and he complains that he really feels every expansion joint. That gets old fast - take it for a longer test drive before buying.

It is nicely fitted out inside, though.

 

[YSSMAN]

RE: Vehicle Shipping Across State Lines

That would be a bit of a difficult hurdle in CA I suppose. When we bought our Avalanche last year we ended up having it shipped (well, driven) up from the Chicago suburbs to here in Grand Rapids. Most of the same rules apply here and there, so the dealers trade their vehicles all the time in the area. A lot of the trucks around here first went to Chicago or Toledo, then travel around these parts. Too many overloaded trucks around here.

Plus, it was the only way we were going to find a stripper Avalanche to begin with.

 

[Gil]

As for the FJ, there's one of those guys that parks his purple one at Starbucks every single day. He has a kayak and cargo boxes on the top, and they're always there. Every time. The truck is always perfectly clean. If you saw the guy you'd see how he always walks fast, has his sunglasses on at night, wears the tight exercise outfits, etc. One of those guys.

I've got a serious stigma against FJs because I've never personally seen one dirty. They're basically the same as an H2 to me. People get them to grab attention and generally be douches. As a matter of fact, I think I passed one in the snow the other day in the RX7.

EDIT: Have you seen how large the new MDX is? I support getting the old one. They're reasonable. But the new one is like a damn Expedition.

I got into an FJ at a car show, and was totally un-impressed.
Yeah, it's got some "cute factor" (my wife thinks it looks like a MINI on steroids).
But once the doors were closed, I found it hard to see out of.
I NEVER drive off road. So, I don't know it the FJ is all that capable off the beaten track. But it would be a nightmare to drive on the street. The C pillars could block out entire tractor-trailer rigs!

 

[Danoff]

On that list I would buy the S4 Avant in a heartbeat and stop looking. Hands down. In fact, there isn't even a second place that I'd be interested in out of all those cars.

Yea, that's almost certainly not going to happen.

My boss/coworker has an RDX and while it beats the crap out of the comparable Lexus and Infiniti, it's still not that exciting to ride in or drive. He also drives it several hundred miles a week on nice freeways and he complains that he really feels every expansion joint. That gets old fast - take it for a longer test drive before buying.

It is nicely fitted out inside, though.

We've taken the RSX-S on road trips a few times. We're very familiar with what a stiff acura suspension feels like (outside of the NSX of course). I think that's basically how they manage to make it out-handle the competition. In a tight turn the suspension responded just the way my RSX does. It hunkered down and inspired confidence - the exact opposite of every other SUV it seems.

 

[Duke]

The RDX is a nice car-truck-thing as car-truck-things go, and I'm an Acura fan too. I just know it's something he was unpleasantly surprised by.

 

[Danoff]

Well the next test-driving step is Volvo and Audi. She wants to see an S4 avant in person, but isn't optimistic. Of course, she said the same thing about the EX and came away loving it. I think the A3 has a better chance styling-wise, but I don't know if it would be large enough. The EX was pretty marginal size-wise.

After a little more research, the Q5 is still too expensive, so it would have to be a Q7 - which is probably going to be deemed too big, but is on the level with the XC-90 in terms of size I think. So Audi is not particularly likely.

Volvo is similar. The XC60 (not 70, as listed), is still too new, so it's most likely dead due to price. The XC90 is expensive and big, I don't give it the best chance.

After volvo the goal will be to find a sports appearance package on the Rav-4 somewhere to look at in person. The sports appearance package basically gets rid of the spare on the back (new rear door) and adds run-flats. This is another sacrifice of functionality for the sake of appearance, but this is consistent with someone who owns multiple pairs of high heels (style over function). If the rav-4 sports appearance looks good in person we'll have to try to find a V6 awd to test drive. Either way, awesome or not, the plan going forward is the same...

Clean up loose ends. I'll show her a tribeca in person so she can say "ew" and cross it off. Then we try to get a handle on how hard it would be to get an EX (with the non-wood interior that ///M points out), that passes state emissions at the right price. I have a feeling this is an over-constrained problem that will kill the EX.

From there it's back to Acura to re-drive the RDX and test out the MDX. Provided that one of those wins, we buy. Otherwise we go order our custom-designed Rav-4 and pay through the nose for low mileage.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the A3 has a better chance styling-wise, but I don't know if it would be large enough.

Its a Golf hatchback. There is room in there if you're used to small cars, but it is no crossover replacement.

Pro Tip: Spring for the MKVI Golf instead. Having looked at the new Golf earlier this week against an A3 at the auto show, I'm not sure what the advantage is to having four rings on the grille. Okay, I guess AWD is a "bonus" (not sure what you'd need it for out there), but its a generation behind, and I'd call the interior quality fairly even between the two.




RE: RAV4 Sport V6

Are they really that hard to find out there? We've got two or three at the local dealer (if I'm reading their website right). The trick would be finding one without too many of the stupid add-ons. I'd think that between the recall and the fact that you're in CA, where they blow through Toyotas like what, you could easily walk down the price a couple of grand without too much footwork.

 

[///M-Spec]

Pro Tip: <SNIP> Okay, I guess AWD is a "bonus" (not sure what you'd need it for out there), <SNIP>

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.

If you're going to bill advice as a "Pro Tip", I suggest fully understanding the requirements first.


EDIT: Getting an EX35 out of state.

Dan, I would talk to the out of state dealer that has the car you're looking for and find out what he's willing to do for you. Don't bother asking a local dealer to find a car for you; unless it's a brand new car, there's usually too much risk and hassle involved with that kind of transaction for it to be worth their while. They have to haggle with the other dealer, haggle with you, then take the risk that you may back out of the deal, leaving them stuck with a car they can't easily sell. Some dealers may offer to buy one for you at auction --if they're willing to risk you leaving them hanging. But then you're buying a car literally sight unseen --rarely a good move.


M

 

[Danoff]

RE: RAV4 Sport V6

Are they really that hard to find out there? We've got two or three at the local dealer (if I'm reading their website right). The trick would be finding one without too many of the stupid add-ons. I'd think that between the recall and the fact that you're in CA, where they blow through Toyotas like what, you could easily walk down the price a couple of grand without too much footwork.

It's not just "sport", it's "sport appearance" (how could you confuse that? ). Not quite sure what the difference is. But I've been looking for weeks now and I've still never seen a single rav 4 on the road with the sport appearance package. Any rav 4 that has the spare on the back doesn't have it... and as best I can tell, that's all of them.

I just did an autotrader search for a V6 AWD Rav-4 with leather seats within 100 miles of me. There was one... and it didn't have the sport appearance package. This means buying new.

 

[Philly]

Its a Golf hatchback. There is room in there if you're used to small cars, but it is no crossover replacement.

Pro Tip: Spring for the MKVI Golf instead. Having looked at the new Golf earlier this week against an A3 at the auto show, I'm not sure what the advantage is to having four rings on the grille. Okay, I guess AWD is a "bonus" (not sure what you'd need it for out there), but its a generation behind, and I'd call the interior quality fairly even between the two.

I was about to suggest the GTI over the A3. But my GTI isn't exactly confidence-inspiring in the snow so it would be questionable on ski trips. Especially for Californians who probably aren't pro at driving in the snow.

But while the GTI is huge on the inside, isn't the A3 somehow quite a bit smaller than the Golf?

 

[YSSMAN]

It's not just "sport", it's "sport appearance" (how could you confuse that? ). Not quite sure what the difference is. But I've been looking for weeks now and I've still never seen a single rav 4 on the road with the sport appearance package. Any rav 4 that has the spare on the back doesn't have it... and as best I can tell, that's all of them.

For some reason when you use the "build it" function on the Toyota website, it automatically includes the Sport Appearance Package when you build a Sport model. There is, as far as I can tell, no way to un-select it. I assume that it is an error then? I've seen a few of these RAV4s around, but like you point out, most have the spare on the back.

As for buying new, are they doing the same $1000 customer cash deal out in CA as they are here in MI? I think most Toyotas are 50-sate emissions rated (their builder seems to state it as such), so you should be able to have your dealer hunt one down if they don't have any locally.

I was about to suggest the GTI over the A3. But my GTI isn't exactly confidence-inspiring in the snow so it would be questionable on ski trips. Especially for Californians who probably aren't pro at driving in the snow.

But while the GTI is huge on the inside, isn't the A3 somehow quite a bit smaller than the Golf?

Pfffft, snow. I do take my position in the country for granted too often, assuming that people actually know how to drive in a couple of inches of slush... Let alone damp roads (aaaaahhhhh!). That's why the news on the east coast has been so hilarious to us folks up here. All of us know the pros and cons of AWD, so we don't really need to go through that jazz (again).

As for the MKVI Golf being bigger than the MKV-based A3, its only by fractions I believe. The A3 is actually a little bit longer, and it has a little more room in the back for your junk. But, its the same in the front seats and the back. But, yeah, the Audi feels a little smaller. Jedi mind tricks, I think. That or we are automatically bound to dislike anything that doesn't have a VW on the hood.

 

[Philly]

Pfffft, snow. I do take my position in the country for granted too often, assuming that people actually know how to drive in a couple of inches of slush... Let alone damp roads (aaaaahhhhh!). That's why the news on the east coast has been so hilarious to us folks up here. All of us know the pros and cons of AWD, so we don't really need to go through that jazz (again).

As for the MKVI Golf being bigger than the MKV-based A3, its only by fractions I believe. The A3 is actually a little bit longer, and it has a little more room in the back for your junk. But, its the same in the front seats and the back. But, yeah, the Audi feels a little smaller. Jedi mind tricks, I think. That or we are automatically bound to dislike anything that doesn't have a VW on the hood.

While I would normally agree, I think that being down in California makes the small amounts of snow you'll see on ski trips a little more significant. I'm assuming that Danoff and Mrs. D aren't that experienced in the snow (but they very well could be), and for somebody inexperienced like me, driving the FWD DSG GTI in the snow with all-seasons is pretty challenging. Although I guess it wasn't that bad up in the mountains. Probably still a bit less than ideal, but it is drivable in small amounts of snow. By comparison, the XC70 on old all-seasons was quite a bit easier to drive.

It must be some play with the mind in the A3. Because every time I get in one I always wonder what happened to all the space in my car... Maybe they spent it on the rear seat passengers and bigger seats or something.

 

[Danoff]

The AWD isn't really for safety, it's for convenience. I've taken my RSX up into the mountains in the snow before (on high performance summer tires) and slid around up there. No biggie - I'm careful... and I had chains (required).

That's the real issue - chains.

When it snows in the mountains around here, plows are few and far between (I think at big bear they don't even bother plowing most of it). As soon as that happens everyone is required to put on chains unless you have AWD and the appropriate tires.

Chains work ok on front wheel drive cars. It gets you dirty while you're lying on your side on a nasty slushy part of road while yanking and yanking and yanking on those stupid chains. It's cold, it's wet, it's hard work, takes forever (this is not insignificant when you're driving a long way), and generally a pain in the ass. I hate it. I hate putting them on, I hate taking them off (figuring out when to take them off), and I hate every scraping noise I hear against the car.

On rear wheel drive cars (which is what all of these are if they aren't AWD), chains are absurd unless you put them on all 4 wheels. They go on the drive wheels, but it seems like you really ought to have them on the turning wheels as well. Double the pain of putting on chains means just flat-out not going on that ski trip. Seriously, it's not worth it.

AWD = no chains = skiing
RWD = 4-wheel chains = no skiing
FWD = 2-wheel chains = some skiing, some cursing