If you were buying a car...
Would you rather buy:
Car A, which meets your objective criteria excellently and your subjective criteria decently, or
Car B, which meets your objective criteria decently and your subjective criteria excellently.
I'm using "objective criteria" as a shorthand for performance, passenger and trunk space, reliability, fuel economy, and list of features and amenities. I'm using "subjective criteria" as a shorthand for interior design, exterior design, the sound of the car, the feel of the car, and most nebulous, the "character" of the car.
Car A, which meets your objective criteria excellently and your subjective criteria decently, or
Car B, which meets your objective criteria decently and your subjective criteria excellently.
I'm using "objective criteria" as a shorthand for performance, passenger and trunk space, reliability, fuel economy, and list of features and amenities. I'm using "subjective criteria" as a shorthand for interior design, exterior design, the sound of the car, the feel of the car, and most nebulous, the "character" of the car.
Comments
In general; Car A.
When enough miles have made gazing lovingly at your hot new ride no longer quite the thrill it once was, you will still have your objective criteria to keep you glad you got it.
i've owned, driven them all
closest to perfection--lexus ls430
cool factor--mustang/ bmw convertible
surprised-luxury---bmw 525 5sp--sweet
most amazed by its overall performance--94 civc ex coupe with 5 sp.#2 new beetle turbo... WOW, very close to my bmw experience--handled well-can't beat that honda shifter and got 44mpg hwy with a/c--the beetle saved my wife from a terrible accident--i guess it's the egg shape.
my 2 cents
reg
I have a Honda Odyssey (car A) and a '74 Alfa Romeo Spider (car
Why don't you just tell us which two cars you're looking at, and we can provide input.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Damn it Jim. . .
Why don't you just tell us which two cars you're looking at, and we can provide input.
Okay, okay. Car A is the Acura TSX; Car B is the Volvo S40. I really like the looks, interior design, and character of the Volvo, but its reliability has been hit-or-miss. The Acura is more clinical--it feels like a machine, not a living thing--but it's got fantastic handling, an enormous amount of features for the price, and I've owned three Hondas before and always been impressed by their reliability.
I've test-driven both and also several competitors. These are the two finalists.
Originally posted by Mitlov
Okay, okay. Car A is the Acura TSX; Car B is the Volvo S40. I really like the looks, interior design, and character of the Volvo, but its reliability has been hit-or-miss. The Acura is more clinical--it feels like a machine, not a living thing--but it's got fantastic handling, an enormous amount of features for the price, and I've owned three Hondas before and always been impressed by their reliability.
I've test-driven both and also several competitors. These are the two finalists.
You might look more closely at what exactly comprises the Volvo's reliability problems.
There are endemic manufacturing shortcomings, and then there are specific instances of faulty parts that can skew the ratings.
Fro instance, as I've mentioned around here before, I bought a Jetta wagon in the teeth of a lot of bad press for VW, knowing as I did that the problems with the Jetta all centered on 3 specific areas, that those problems derived from a bad design and a bad batch of parts in the supply chain, and that the model year I was buying addressed those issues.
So, 40K later and not a whisper of trouble, plus tons 'o turbo fun.
Actually, for me, the Jetta was a objective/subjective decision, since it gave me the utilitarian form factor I needed (without a lot of adolescent histrionics ala some of the current spate of "crossover" things) with a fare amount of driving dynamics.
reg
Originally posted by Mitlov
Okay, okay. Car A is the Acura TSX; Car B is the Volvo S40. I really like the looks, interior design, and character of the Volvo, but its reliability has been hit-or-miss. The Acura is more clinical--it feels like a machine, not a living thing--but it's got fantastic handling, an enormous amount of features for the price, and I've owned three Hondas before and always been impressed by their reliability.
I've test-driven both and also several competitors. These are the two finalists.
Get the V50 T-5 AWD manual, it is just like the S40 but more useful.
The torque steer from the Acura will really start to bother you after a while.
My 1995 Volvo 850 and my 2004 Volvo V70R are both very reliable. I felt kind of sick when I drove the S40, since the suspension was so much better than my much more expensive V70R.
Originally posted by e1618978
The S40 T-5 is an awesome car, and Volvo reliability (except for the Ford transition years of 1998-2002) is really good.
My 1995 Volvo 850 and my 2004 Volvo V70R are both very reliable. I felt kind of sick when I drove the S40, since the suspension was so much better than my much more expensive V70R.
That's good to know, though according to both JD Power and Consumer Reports, Volvos have more problems than Acura. They're not bad, mind you. They're right in the middle of the reliability pack. But Acuras are some of the most reliable cars out there. By the way, I'm considering the FWD, not the AWD, S40, so the torque steer issue is a wash. Both have 'em.
Originally posted by skatman
Honda/ Acura has about 1/1000 of the torque that Volvos have... even AWD Volvos.
Not necessarily true.
I am considering both the Volvo S40 2.4i (cheaper than the TSX) and the Volvo S40 T5 (more expensive than the TSX).
The TSX and the 2.4i make equal torque (though the TSX makes 35 more horsepower). The T5 makes a lot more torque (230 versus 170 ft-lbs), though barely more horsepower than the TSX.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
FYI: The S40 Turbo AWD (or maybe it's S50), if i remember correctly, is the same platform that a Mazda3 rally car is going to be built on.
my wife has that car in red. awesome performer. get 38-42mpg at 65 it's a bit small but for her she can fit the kids. the interior could use more cubbyholes and a wider glove box but this thing scoots--performs better than her a6 tons of torgue the only one to get in my opinion.... the interior and dash are clean and easy to read without being spartan and big $$$$ bmw. she also gets free pickup with loaner (dealer is 65 miles away) so for any service they pick it up and leave a loaner it's a looker and gets tons of compliments. it replaced an a6 quartro which she loved. the a4 didn't have as stylish an interior and she wanted something different. she has the only red one in our town it handles just like the 3 series. and safty to the max i think you can get an interface for the ipod. get the t5 awd. they wanted 1k for the parking senso i put on a license plate type myself works great for $150
Originally posted by progmac
I wouldn't buy the volkswagon. I think you'll end up just getting annoyed with it and wish you'd gotten car A. The new Civics, for example, aren't exactly boring.
The Civic's interior looks like it was designed by a cross-eyed Mandrill.
If I could afford it, though, I would buy a Caddy CTS.
My mom is looking for a car, it's a toss between a Chevy Impala or a Buick LaCrosse. Leaning towards the Chevy.