I'm down to Chevy Cruze and Honda Accord, 2013 models for new car. thoughts?

REsale values? Hyundai's have had some of the lowest resale values for years and they have been making extremely durable and well made cars for quite a while.

My list of exceptional GM vehicles: 1980 C10 1993 GMC C1500 1989 Caprice 9C1 1991 Caprice 9C1 1992 GMC G20 conversion van 1989 C1500 chevy 2000 Sonoma 2wd 2003 Silverado 2wd 2006 Sierra 1998 GMC fullsize van 2002 Astro 1988 C4 Z51 1984 C4 auto

The lowest mileage vehicle in the fleet there is dad's 84 C4 with 101k miles. Everything else was 150k+ with no issues out of any of them.

But you're right, all GM's are junk.

Seriously, I've owned a few over the years, and certainly have had no worse luck than some other brands (including the supposedly perfect and infallible Civic). I have a feeling that the placebo effect is strong with this one...

bobzilla is my hero

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit to owning a 1985 C-30 Dooley for the past 10 years. It has been a great truck.

4cylndrfury wrote: bobzilla is my hero

You, sir, REALLY need to get out more!

Cruze vs Accord? That's like choosing between getting stabbed or shot.

I can think of atleast 4 cars better than than the cruze: Elantra, Golf 2.5, new Focus, Fiesta

Aeromoto wrote: Oh it doesnt begin and end with the Sub

So, answer again why you don't take it in for warranty service? Ohh, wait, you didn't answer that the first time...

Javelin wrote:

digdug18 wrote: I'd rather not go for a lease either, but me and wife cannot afford to purchase outright and still keep 6 months of pay in the bank account just in case. I need a family mobile at this point, we're hoping for 2nd child in less then a year.

Does not compute. You want to save money, but have another kid? Also, the best way to save money is NOT lease! Buy a used car! If I can pick up a 2006 under-70K mile Mazda5 for $9K from a DEALER, so can you! With $2000 down that's under a $200 a month payment for even a 4-5 year loan! Come on man, stop the excuses!

I'm not hoping for a second child...it's in the oven! So I too am looking at new car deals, and cross-shopping the used market. Anything used and good on gas is at a premium right now. Some companies (Toyota IIRC) are offering 0% apr to purchase, but your credit better be north of 720. I'm not a fan of leasing either, but I understand the monthly payment deal. I would rather go used than lease new.

^Given there is a bun in the oven and existing one to take care of in uncertain times, I'd take new and lease.

Why?

No surprise repairs like you would get on a used car. No deferred maintenance to catch up on. Err, I mean spend money on. Warranty

You know exactly what your out of pocket monthly cost is going to be. That financial certainty is a lot better than the unknowns that come with a used car. In 22 years of buying used cars, there are always surprises that come with them. usually at the most inopportune time.

Lease it and spend your extra time and money on family.

Bobzilla wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: bobzilla is my hero

You, sir, REALLY need to get out more!

Well thats a given

Aeromoto wrote: Oh it doesnt begin and end with the Sub, theres also an 01 Blazer that wasw maybe the most horrible thing to ever disgrace 4 tires, a 99 Sub that was just as bad, and a parade of Camaros and C4 corvettes. The C4s I owned, especially the 85 and 91, has the worst interior quality of any car I've ever seen before or since, with a close possible second being the mid 80s Monte carlo SS's and Elcaminos. The last one I owned that had a feeling of quality was the 1990 Suburban. I put 250k on it and never had a problem. All this being said, I currently have a 65 Eldorado ragtop and an 84 S-10 tubbed drag car that I love. I just wouldn't ever buy another new one. I think the resale values speak for themselves

They why would you buy another after the 01?

Joey

amg_rx7 wrote: ^Given there is a bun in the oven and existing one to take care of in uncertain times, I'd take new and lease. Why? No surprise repairs like you would get on a used car. No deferred maintenance to catch up on. Err, I mean spend money on. Warranty You know exactly what your out of pocket monthly cost is going to be. That financial certainty is a lot better than the unknowns that come with a used car. In 22 years of buying used cars, there are always surprises that come with them. usually at the most inopportune time. Lease it and spend your extra time and money on family.

Pretty much the advice I got from family, including Pops who sold cars for close to 30 years. In the end, I decided to spend the extra dough to purchase. Leasing just didn't make sense for me. But I TOTALLY understand the logic, especially being a new parent. Getting something ultra-reliable and safe was my version of 'nesting' I suppose.

Duke wrote:

Aeromoto wrote: Oh it doesnt begin and end with the Sub

So, answer again why you don't take it in for warranty service? Ohh, wait, you didn't answer that the first time...

155k miles, warranty has expired

sO you put 150k miles on a vehicle in 2 years and expect it to be perfect? I really don't even knowwhat to tell you. I mean.... nothing is going to hold up to that abuse without things wearing out.

Aeromoto wrote: And don't get me started on the brakes (trucks). If you actually use the trucks to their rated capacity, the brakes are grossly undersized if not down right dangerous.

2002 2500HD. Brakes are awesome. :shrug:

Bobzilla wrote: sO you put 150k miles on a vehicle in 2 years and expect it to be perfect? I really don't even knowwhat to tell you. I mean.... nothing is going to hold up to that abuse without things wearing out.

Well silly me, I bought it to use as a work vehicle, not to go to the grocery and the kid's soccer games. That's what they're selling in their fancy commercials, right, a hard working truck? You know, how they're shown plowing through a mud hole on a job site with a gross of 2X4s in the back. I use mine to haul aircraft and aircraft parts, not a lot of weight but yes high miles. They should be honest and do the commercials from a handicapped parking spot at Walmart

Aeromoto wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: sO you put 150k miles on a vehicle in 2 years and expect it to be perfect? I really don't even knowwhat to tell you. I mean.... nothing is going to hold up to that abuse without things wearing out.

Well silly me, I bought it to use as a work vehicle, not to go to the grocery and the kid's soccer games. That's what they're selling in their fancy commercials, right, a hard working truck? You know, how they're shown plowing through a mud hole on a job site with a gross of 2X4s in the back. I use mine to haul aircraft and aircraft parts, not a lot of weight but yes high miles. They should be honest and do the commercials from a handicapped parking spot at Walmart

Not sure what to suggest here. You seem to be the exception rather than the norm in this thread, but if you dislike GMs so much maybe an Excursion with the 7.3 diesel would be a good choice. Unfortunately I think 2003 was the last year. I had a 99 F250 with the 7.3 and really liked it, I just liked the Cummins engine better so got a Dodge.

Also, just to vent, I'm pissed off because GM didn't put the Duramax allison combo in the 3/4 ton Suburban....I'd love one of those.

"nothing but junk for the last two decades"....

Wow, that's a pretty broad brush, haven't heard that since hangin' out on AOL and Yahoo auto boards....

But wait a minute.... this IS the GRM board, right?

Bobzilla wrote: sO you put 150k miles on a vehicle in 2 years and expect it to be perfect? I really don't even knowwhat to tell you. I mean.... nothing is going to hold up to that abuse without things wearing out.

Exactly. You expected it to go 150+ thousand miles without breaking? That's like 12 years of standard use. Show me a car that is 12 years old with average mileage for its age that hasn't needed to have some parts replaced.

If you're going to treat it like a taxi cab, it's going to end up looking and driving like one. That is hardly a scathing indictment of GM build quality.

fasted58 wrote: "nothing but junk for the last two decades".... Wow, that's a pretty broad brush, haven't heard that since hangin' out on AOL and Yahoo auto boards.... But wait a minute.... this IS the GRM board, right?

Well if they didn't build crap for the last 2 decades, how did they get in the trouble they're in? How did they lose Olds, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn in that time and come within a hair of folding up? It surely wasn't because people were pleased with their products and it wasn't because people were beating a path to their showrooms. Let's face it, they were riding the coat tails of their past and counting on brand loyalty, but even that well has run dry. They built cars that no one wanted to buy, and the cars they sold were not up to par in design or quality. Am I making this up? Sometime the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.

poopshovel wrote:

amg_rx7 wrote: ^Given there is a bun in the oven and existing one to take care of in uncertain times, I'd take new and lease. Why? No surprise repairs like you would get on a used car. No deferred maintenance to catch up on. Err, I mean spend money on. Warranty You know exactly what your out of pocket monthly cost is going to be. That financial certainty is a lot better than the unknowns that come with a used car. In 22 years of buying used cars, there are always surprises that come with them. usually at the most inopportune time. Lease it and spend your extra time and money on family.

Pretty much the advice I got from family, including Pops who sold cars for close to 30 years. In the end, I decided to spend the extra dough to purchase. Leasing just didn't make sense for me. But I TOTALLY understand the logic, especially being a new parent. Getting something ultra-reliable and safe was my version of 'nesting' I suppose.

Ditto on both for me. Piece of mind goes alot farther, especially if you have other things to worry about.

Aeromoto wrote:

fasted58 wrote: "nothing but junk for the last two decades".... Wow, that's a pretty broad brush, haven't heard that since hangin' out on AOL and Yahoo auto boards.... But wait a minute.... this IS the GRM board, right?

Well if they didn't build crap for the last 2 decades, how did they get in the trouble they're in? How did they lose Olds, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn in that time and come within a hair of folding up? It surely wasn't because people were pleased with their products and it wasn't because people were beating a path to their showrooms. Let's face it, they were riding the coat tails of their past and counting on brand loyalty, but even that well has run dry. They built cars that no one wanted to buy, and the cars they sold were not up to par in design or quality. Am I making this up? Sometime the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.

People were pleased with some of the products GM was selling (trucks and SUVs). Yes, the small cars they built may not have been as good as the competition but they didn't make much money on them so they instead spent more time developing trucks and SUVs which made up a substantial chunk of their sales. Then gas prices rose and sales of their key products dropped. Throw some expensive defined benefit pension plans and other poor management decisions along with a struggling economy on top of that and you get a recipe bankruptcy. To say the only reason GM went bankrupt and lost those brands solely because of crappy cars ignores many of the other issues that forced them into bankruptcy.

Aeromoto wrote:

fasted58 wrote: "nothing but junk for the last two decades".... Wow, that's a pretty broad brush, haven't heard that since hangin' out on AOL and Yahoo auto boards.... But wait a minute.... this IS the GRM board, right?

Well if they didn't build crap for the last 2 decades, how did they get in the trouble they're in? How did they lose Olds, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn in that time and come within a hair of folding up? It surely wasn't because people were pleased with their products and it wasn't because people were beating a path to their showrooms. Let's face it, they were riding the coat tails of their past and counting on brand loyalty, but even that well has run dry. They built cars that no one wanted to buy, and the cars they sold were not up to par in design or quality. Am I making this up? Sometime the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.

Many forget but GM instituted their own restructuring plan in late '05 under Rick Wagoner w/ full profitability turnaround results expected in 2010. The plan in effect was working, that is until the financial meltdown happened when just about every global automaker was seeking private or government loans, Toyota and Honda included. Up to that point there was only speculation of GM brand elimination or consolidation.

From the US House Committee hearings:

"Over a period of many months, the Obama administration engaged in negotiations with GM, rejecting initial reorganizing plans and ousting the company's CEO. The government only agreed to its GM bailout and equity stake after extracting a reorganization plan that includes eliminating four GM brands, closing GM factories across the country and eliminating hundreds of dealers." The 'administration' AKA known as the White House Task Force.

..... hope that helps w/ the truth

Yeah, I could care less about GM's past transgressions. Every car company has made bad vehicles over the years, unreliable or dangerous or both. I'm looking for a deal, and if I need to lease a car to get it down to a manageable level so that I may one day purchase it, then so be it.