I have read NONE of the responses to date. What I can tell you is this, I frequent a message board about 'mopars'. There they have an area you can ask questions and read info on the Liberty.
Passat. Drive it to 50 or 60k miles, then move on. Volkswagens are nice cars, but expensive to repair.
The Liberty does flip. Chrysler quitely dropped the ride height 2" the second year of production. Autoweek managed to flip one in a low speed maneuver. Chrysler said it was because they tried it in a parking lot, and not on perfecly even pavement. (Like no-one ever had to do that in a parking lot before )
i have a 2001 jetta vr6. i love to drive this car. it can really scoot. my only regret is i didn't get leather. if you go with the pasat, get the v6 model. the four cylinder is under powered as a co-worker of mine will attest. you'll get run over. however, the one sour point to owning a german car is the cost of repairs, as stated earlier. find someone good that can work on them besides the dealer once the warranty is up. those bastards, as with most if not all dealers, are a bunch of pricks that will stick it to you when ever possible. if i had it to do over again, i might have bought a honda or an acura. i think you get more for you money from some of the Japanese manufacturers. plus, they tend to run forever and a day with little or no problems. cheap to maintain.
I think the passat is great, but pricey. A friend of mine has the 1.8T engine FWD version, the slightly older model -- not as nice visually as the revised current model, but very similar. It's been a few years, and he hasn't had a problem with it. The ride is very nice and the handling is good. The new 1.8T even has some decent poke, about 180hp, and it's supposed to be bullet-proof in its low boost form. By all accounts VW really has made incredible strides in build quality and reliability in the last 5 years, the new passat and golf models consistently get top marks. Still, I remember some of my friends old golfs from HS, and they were shjt boxes.
I was recently in a similar situation (station wagon or SUV). The problems with SUV's that they have to make compromises: In order to be able to drive offroad, the handling on-road is typically worse. The braking distance, mpg, crash behaviour, maximum speed etc. are typically worse on a SUV than on a car that is optimized for road travel.
In your position, I would make a list with pros and cons for a SUV.
The main reason why we decided to buy a SUV was that one requirement was to pull a heavy horse trailer. All interesting station wagons that had the similar specs were more expensive.
1. The V6 is smooth but as I understand it the 1.8 turbo is no slouch: it's definitely more "race car like" of the two. VW wrings a lot of torque out of their engines, meaning that while off-the-line might feel a tad slouchy, the wagon has punch in passing situations, between 40 and 60 mph. That's where it really shines.
2. The wagon is quite roomy, with more space (folding the seats down) than some SUVs. And unlike SUVs, there's no "tippy" feeling while driving.
3. Ride is comfortable and surefooted, seats are good, and the handling is excellent. The Passat also has lots of nice touches and built-in features, some of which I'm still discovering. Most driver conveniences have been considered and nothing to my mind seems slapdash.
These cars are not always easy to find and not always discounted very much.
I would recommend against the Sebring. My grandparents test drove one a couple years ago and when adjusting the seat, my grandmother cut her fingers. That was because of poor build quality and quality control, and unless they've gotten better in the past two years, they still probably have quality control problems (and if there's one problem that's readily apparent like that, there are probably many more lurking).
My brother has a subscription to Consumer Reports and he's always talking about reliability. By far, Toyota and Honda have the best reliability, with the various American and Korean companies having the worst reliability. I can speak from experience that Toyotas and Hondas are extremely reliable; I drive an eleven year old Corolla with 175k miles and it still runs great. I also sometimes drive my parents' 97 Mercury Villager, and it has had nearly as many problems as the 91 Corolla in about half the time (including the dealership actually deliberately causing problems with the car to force us to pay more, putting our lives in jeopardy at the same time).
Anyway, the incident with the van pretty much made me want to avoid Fords at all cost. I'm glad you aren't considering one.
A friend of mine has a recent Passat, and it's a really nice car. According to Consumer Reports, the reliability is historically average, but I don't own the car so again, I can't speak from experience.
If I were going into this, I'd get either the Passat or the Altima. I admit I'm biased against American cars, as CR generally reports really bad reliability for all makes.
have a jeep, hate it. SUV's are bad for the enviroment. hybrids are ausome. go for the passot, i have rode is a 2002,a 2000 and 1998, the are all very nice. VW, is a good company. The jeeps have very expensive repairs. personally i do not like the looks of the liberty. Mini Coopers are the best
I'm surprised to see that my thread came back from the "dead." So here's an update:
After starting my new job and figuring out EXACTLY how much I'm making, planning a budget, looking at my needs, etc., I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Liberty will be too expensive, and any sedan I get won't be able to carry some of the stuff I have to haul around (video equipment, lighting, sound stuff, etc.).
So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. I've heard pretty good things about it -- it's not a "perfect" vehicle by any means, but I've heard much more good than bad about it. I'd be able to haul stuff around with it, but because it's built on a car chassis, it'll be a smoother ride. On that note, I've come to the conclusion that I don't need *so much* off-road capability. I just need enough to drive around the campgrounds I frequent in the summers, and get to some not-so-on-road portions of my city while working. The Tribute should be plenty fine for that.
Fact is, with the Tribute I can get more space, better options, leather (Grrr, yeah.), yadda yadda yadda, for the same amount of money. It certainly would cost less for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. than a Jeep.
I still want a Passat, but I'll get that for my next car when I have a bit more money and I don't need to haul as much stuff.
. . . .So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. . . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm all for supporting the only company that still produces rotary engines, but I digress.
I've heard that the Tribute is nice, but that you NEED to get the v6. Secondly, the Tribute is supposedly the same thing as a Ford Escape. Make your own judgement.
The cost I see is about $20k even. The Escape is the same, price-wise.
A V6 Passat will go for 22-25 if you don't pile on the options.
<strong>Interesting. You looking at the V6? Don't the Liberty and Tribute occupy more or less the same price point (High teens to low 20s)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'd DEFINITELY get the V6 on the Tribute. No way for the 4.
Yes, the Liberty and Tribute are close, however to get all the options for the Liberty as would come on the Tribute, the Liberty would end up being a bit more. Also, looking at "True Cost to Own" indexes on both at <a href="http://www.edmunds.com"; target="_blank">http://www.edmunds.com</a>; shows that the Liberty would be MUCH more expensive in the long run.
My vote goes to Passat. Personally I have a Jetta wagon here and I concur with several points above.
1. As much cargo space as an SUV but without any of the bad qualities of SUV.
2. High torque available at low RPM = feeling of zippiness.
3. 1.8 turbo 4 cylinder performs just as well as V6.
4. While there is a 8 cylinder option available on the Passat (wagon for now), many feel the value they offer is not worth the preium W8 has over the GLX/S.
3. 1.8 turbo 4 cylinder performs just as well as V6.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Turbos are a bit strange. Take it from someone who owns a turbo car. If you drive automatic, and you're a normal, american driver, turbos suck. There is no replacement for displacement.
Turbo's will only kick in at a certain rpm, usually about 3500 or so, and the fact is that most driving in this country is low rpm. The turbo lag is enough to seriously confuse many drivers, especially when coupled to an automatic. and when you're on-boost, kiss mileage goodbye. I know saab 9-3 turbo owners who bitch and moan about the jumpiness of the car along with the bad gas mileage.
low rpm torque is the single most important thing I look for in, what we motorheads call, a "daily driver."
The V6 is worth it. The 200hp V6 (vs 172hp) is not.
Splinemodel: True, the performance/preference for turbo versus displacement really depends on who you are and where you drive. For southern California, I think a good turbo can be as good as a bigger engine IMHO.
<strong>I'm surprised to see that my thread came back from the "dead." So here's an update:
After starting my new job and figuring out EXACTLY how much I'm making, planning a budget, looking at my needs, etc., I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Liberty will be too expensive, and any sedan I get won't be able to carry some of the stuff I have to haul around (video equipment, lighting, sound stuff, etc.).
So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. I've heard pretty good things about it -- it's not a "perfect" vehicle by any means, but I've heard much more good than bad about it. I'd be able to haul stuff around with it, but because it's built on a car chassis, it'll be a smoother ride. On that note, I've come to the conclusion that I don't need *so much* off-road capability. I just need enough to drive around the campgrounds I frequent in the summers, and get to some not-so-on-road portions of my city while working. The Tribute should be plenty fine for that.
Fact is, with the Tribute I can get more space, better options, leather (Grrr, yeah.), yadda yadda yadda, for the same amount of money. It certainly would cost less for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. than a Jeep.
I still want a Passat, but I'll get that for my next car when I have a bit more money and I don't need to haul as much stuff.
Any comments?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought one could get a base Liberty for $17,000 or less.
I rode in a Passat today. First time in a VW. The leather smells bad compared to the E-class I had. And I kept thinking the engine smelled as if it burned oil, which is not uncommon in some German cars, including the E class I had. It was a 1.8Turbo and with three normal guys (well, one was a little on the light side) it didn't pick up very quickly. But, not bad. Not like my friends WRX.
Everyone complained about the twisty-style of recliner seats.
Turbos are a bit strange. Take it from someone who owns a turbo car. If you drive automatic, and you're a normal, american driver, turbos suck. There is no replacement for displacement.
Turbo's will only kick in at a certain rpm, usually about 3500 or so, and the fact is that most driving in this country is low rpm. The turbo lag is enough to seriously confuse many drivers, especially when coupled to an automatic. and when you're on-boost, kiss mileage goodbye. I know saab 9-3 turbo owners who bitch and moan about the jumpiness of the car along with the bad gas mileage.
low rpm torque is the single most important thing I look for in, what we motorheads call, a "daily driver."
The V6 is worth it. The 200hp V6 (vs 172hp) is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You gotta go drive at PT Cruiser GT (Turbo) That thing kicks in low and strong.
I thought one could get a base Liberty for $17,000 or less.
I rode in a Passat today. First time in a VW. The leather smells bad compared to the E-class I had. And I kept thinking the engine smelled as if it burned oil, which is not uncommon in some German cars, including the E class I had. It was a 1.8Turbo and with three normal guys (well, one was a little on the light side) it didn't pick up very quickly. But, not bad. Not like my friends WRX.
Everyone complained about the twisty-style of recliner seats.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On a side note, we were looking at the Passat and the 300M and the S-Type and the E-Class. We went with the 300M. Definately the better car out of the bunch. I was not impressed with the Passat or the E-Class AT ALL.
Comments
Feel free to join in the discussion over there
<a href="http://allpar.com/forums/index.php?s=98341142c033ccdee36f08007aa032fd"; target="_blank">http://allpar.com/forums/index.php?s=98341142c033ccdee36f08007aa032fd</a>;
The Liberty does flip. Chrysler quitely dropped the ride height 2" the second year of production. Autoweek managed to flip one in a low speed maneuver. Chrysler said it was because they tried it in a parking lot, and not on perfecly even pavement. (Like no-one ever had to do that in a parking lot before
In your position, I would make a list with pros and cons for a SUV.
The main reason why we decided to buy a SUV was that one requirement was to pull a heavy horse trailer. All interesting station wagons that had the similar specs were more expensive.
1. The V6 is smooth but as I understand it the 1.8 turbo is no slouch: it's definitely more "race car like" of the two. VW wrings a lot of torque out of their engines, meaning that while off-the-line might feel a tad slouchy, the wagon has punch in passing situations, between 40 and 60 mph. That's where it really shines.
2. The wagon is quite roomy, with more space (folding the seats down) than some SUVs. And unlike SUVs, there's no "tippy" feeling while driving.
3. Ride is comfortable and surefooted, seats are good, and the handling is excellent. The Passat also has lots of nice touches and built-in features, some of which I'm still discovering. Most driver conveniences have been considered and nothing to my mind seems slapdash.
These cars are not always easy to find and not always discounted very much.
Check out <a href="http://www.vwvortex.com"; target="_blank">www.vwvortex.com</a> or <a href="http://www.clubb5.com."; target="_blank">www.clubb5.com.</a>
My brother has a subscription to Consumer Reports and he's always talking about reliability. By far, Toyota and Honda have the best reliability, with the various American and Korean companies having the worst reliability. I can speak from experience that Toyotas and Hondas are extremely reliable; I drive an eleven year old Corolla with 175k miles and it still runs great. I also sometimes drive my parents' 97 Mercury Villager, and it has had nearly as many problems as the 91 Corolla in about half the time (including the dealership actually deliberately causing problems with the car to force us to pay more, putting our lives in jeopardy at the same time).
Anyway, the incident with the van pretty much made me want to avoid Fords at all cost. I'm glad you aren't considering one.
A friend of mine has a recent Passat, and it's a really nice car. According to Consumer Reports, the reliability is historically average, but I don't own the car so again, I can't speak from experience.
If I were going into this, I'd get either the Passat or the Altima. I admit I'm biased against American cars, as CR generally reports really bad reliability for all makes.
<a href="http://www.mini.co.uk"; target="_blank">www.mini.co.uk</a>
YAY
The bigger thea car you get, the more gas you will have to get, and it really adds up over time. think for tomorrow, and don't get an suv.
After starting my new job and figuring out EXACTLY how much I'm making, planning a budget, looking at my needs, etc., I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Liberty will be too expensive, and any sedan I get won't be able to carry some of the stuff I have to haul around (video equipment, lighting, sound stuff, etc.).
So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. I've heard pretty good things about it -- it's not a "perfect" vehicle by any means, but I've heard much more good than bad about it. I'd be able to haul stuff around with it, but because it's built on a car chassis, it'll be a smoother ride. On that note, I've come to the conclusion that I don't need *so much* off-road capability. I just need enough to drive around the campgrounds I frequent in the summers, and get to some not-so-on-road portions of my city while working. The Tribute should be plenty fine for that.
Fact is, with the Tribute I can get more space, better options, leather (Grrr, yeah.), yadda yadda yadda, for the same amount of money. It certainly would cost less for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. than a Jeep.
I still want a Passat, but I'll get that for my next car when I have a bit more money and I don't need to haul as much stuff.
Any comments?
<strong>
. . . .So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. . . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm all for supporting the only company that still produces rotary engines, but I digress.
I've heard that the Tribute is nice, but that you NEED to get the v6. Secondly, the Tribute is supposedly the same thing as a Ford Escape. Make your own judgement.
The cost I see is about $20k even. The Escape is the same, price-wise.
A V6 Passat will go for 22-25 if you don't pile on the options.
<strong>Interesting. You looking at the V6? Don't the Liberty and Tribute occupy more or less the same price point (High teens to low 20s)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'd DEFINITELY get the V6 on the Tribute. No way for the 4.
Yes, the Liberty and Tribute are close, however to get all the options for the Liberty as would come on the Tribute, the Liberty would end up being a bit more. Also, looking at "True Cost to Own" indexes on both at <a href="http://www.edmunds.com"; target="_blank">http://www.edmunds.com</a>; shows that the Liberty would be MUCH more expensive in the long run.
1. As much cargo space as an SUV but without any of the bad qualities of SUV.
2. High torque available at low RPM = feeling of zippiness.
3. 1.8 turbo 4 cylinder performs just as well as V6.
4. While there is a 8 cylinder option available on the Passat (wagon for now), many feel the value they offer is not worth the preium W8 has over the GLX/S.
<strong>
3. 1.8 turbo 4 cylinder performs just as well as V6.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Turbos are a bit strange. Take it from someone who owns a turbo car. If you drive automatic, and you're a normal, american driver, turbos suck. There is no replacement for displacement.
Turbo's will only kick in at a certain rpm, usually about 3500 or so, and the fact is that most driving in this country is low rpm. The turbo lag is enough to seriously confuse many drivers, especially when coupled to an automatic. and when you're on-boost, kiss mileage goodbye. I know saab 9-3 turbo owners who bitch and moan about the jumpiness of the car along with the bad gas mileage.
low rpm torque is the single most important thing I look for in, what we motorheads call, a "daily driver."
The V6 is worth it. The 200hp V6 (vs 172hp) is not.
<strong>I'm surprised to see that my thread came back from the "dead." So here's an update:
After starting my new job and figuring out EXACTLY how much I'm making, planning a budget, looking at my needs, etc., I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Liberty will be too expensive, and any sedan I get won't be able to carry some of the stuff I have to haul around (video equipment, lighting, sound stuff, etc.).
So now I'm looking at getting a Mazda Tribute, actually. I've heard pretty good things about it -- it's not a "perfect" vehicle by any means, but I've heard much more good than bad about it. I'd be able to haul stuff around with it, but because it's built on a car chassis, it'll be a smoother ride. On that note, I've come to the conclusion that I don't need *so much* off-road capability. I just need enough to drive around the campgrounds I frequent in the summers, and get to some not-so-on-road portions of my city while working. The Tribute should be plenty fine for that.
Fact is, with the Tribute I can get more space, better options, leather (Grrr, yeah.), yadda yadda yadda, for the same amount of money. It certainly would cost less for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. than a Jeep.
I still want a Passat, but I'll get that for my next car when I have a bit more money and I don't need to haul as much stuff.
Any comments?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought one could get a base Liberty for $17,000 or less.
I rode in a Passat today. First time in a VW. The leather smells bad compared to the E-class I had. And I kept thinking the engine smelled as if it burned oil, which is not uncommon in some German cars, including the E class I had. It was a 1.8Turbo and with three normal guys (well, one was a little on the light side) it didn't pick up very quickly. But, not bad. Not like my friends WRX.
Everyone complained about the twisty-style of recliner seats.
<strong>
Turbos are a bit strange. Take it from someone who owns a turbo car. If you drive automatic, and you're a normal, american driver, turbos suck. There is no replacement for displacement.
Turbo's will only kick in at a certain rpm, usually about 3500 or so, and the fact is that most driving in this country is low rpm. The turbo lag is enough to seriously confuse many drivers, especially when coupled to an automatic. and when you're on-boost, kiss mileage goodbye. I know saab 9-3 turbo owners who bitch and moan about the jumpiness of the car along with the bad gas mileage.
low rpm torque is the single most important thing I look for in, what we motorheads call, a "daily driver."
The V6 is worth it. The 200hp V6 (vs 172hp) is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You gotta go drive at PT Cruiser GT (Turbo) That thing kicks in low and strong.
<strong>
I thought one could get a base Liberty for $17,000 or less.
I rode in a Passat today. First time in a VW. The leather smells bad compared to the E-class I had. And I kept thinking the engine smelled as if it burned oil, which is not uncommon in some German cars, including the E class I had. It was a 1.8Turbo and with three normal guys (well, one was a little on the light side) it didn't pick up very quickly. But, not bad. Not like my friends WRX.
Everyone complained about the twisty-style of recliner seats.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On a side note, we were looking at the Passat and the 300M and the S-Type and the E-Class. We went with the 300M. Definately the better car out of the bunch. I was not impressed with the Passat or the E-Class AT ALL.