i've been kicking around the idea of a new appliance for my wife for what seems like awhile.
the maxima is great, but will be closing in on 10 years old. she's a very successful interior designer, and image is a factor. if you drive a new mercedes people think you charge too much. drive too old of a car, and they worry if you'll be around tomorrow.
other concerns include fuel efficiency, and trunk capacity, as she drives all over the place and regularly has to carry things.
She likes how the Juke looks. It gets 27mpg city as a FWD CVT. By all accounts they're fairly fun to drive for what they are. Downside is the storage capacity. After six years in a maxima that never EVER broke down, this is her favorite.
The Impreza wagon will get the same mileage as the Juke, despite standard AWD. They have more storage space. It will probably be noticeable slower than the Juke, and way slower than the Maxima she's driving.
A mazda skyactiv wagon should be about the storage capacity as the subaru. it will get the best mileage of the three, if only by a little bit. probably/maybe more fun to drive than the subaru. comes with a real 6sp automatic, not a CVT, which makes me more confident but may or may not actually matter. AND you can get one with dark blue paint and tan cloth interior, which i think looks sharp.
Input from my favorite peanut gallery?
if you are talking about a brand new impreza, they are ungodly amounts of slow, especially with the cvt. so are the 2.5 non turbo cars with cvt, for that matter.
the mazda is what I would go with honestly, or the juke maybe.
Javelin
SuperDork
2/22/12 12:19 p.m.
There's been lots of reports from die-hard Nissan fans of Juke issues, for what it's worth.
The new Impreza is an absolute dog.
The new 3 SkyActiv is neat, but the AT trans in it is not great.
Honestly, I'd go with the only all-Skyactiv car, the new CX-5. It's sharp, roomy, and will win every category important to your wife.
what sort of problems with the Nissan? On paper i see we've got a turbo, a direct injection system, and a CVT. What could go wrong?
corytate wrote:
if you are talking about a brand new impreza, they are ungodly amounts of slow, especially with the cvt. so are the 2.5 non turbo cars with cvt, for that matter.
the mazda is what I would go with honestly, or the juke maybe.
I wanna clarify on the new impreza.
the new USDM engine is the all new 2.0 FB series. Its a good engine, but the new Impreza is also heavy-heavy; i think it has less to do with the trans in this case.
The 2.5 of the previous year model was 'enough,' as opposed to this new one.
I could be wrong but I think the Juke also may require premium fuel. If that matters to you.
Personally I would like the Mazda 3 out of the ones you mentioned. The new CX5 is a good suggestion too but I dont know what they go for.
My wife just got a 2012 Ford Focus hatchback a few months ago, we like it a lot so far. Seeing about 33mpg in mixed conditions.
Osterkraut wrote:
belteshazzar wrote:
she's a very successful interior designer, and image is a factor.
She likes how the Juke looks.
Say what?
i knew that was coming. as much as she likes it, i know not everyone she visits will too. thing is, she earns almost three times as much as i do, so what can i really say about it.
personally i think they look cool.
Raze
SuperDork
2/22/12 1:01 p.m.
My brother owns a Juke, I couldn't talk him out of it, it's the most hideous thing to look at from any angle, but from inside it's actually pretty nice, and put it in awd sport mode or whatever it is and it's a blast to drive, much quicker than you'd expect and it can corner quite sharply. Again the biggest disappointment of this car is getting in or out of it, or even having to look at it...
Out of curiosity, i hopped onto the Mazda USA & Canada website. It appears that Mazda pulled a Juke and you can only get the CX-5 with AWD with the auto. Why do automakers keep doing this?
If you're looking for an appliance, the Kia Soul makes a great case for itself. Lots of car for the money, not bad to drive, available with a stickshift, and the big engine in that thing (two liter, I think) is surprisingly quick.
she still turns her nose up at korean cars. i'm trying to pick my battles.
it's a shame she turns her nose up at Korean cars. Hyundai/Kia builds some stunning looking cars that get good/great miliage and are not half bad to drive.
jstein77 wrote:
failboat wrote:
I could be wrong but I think the Juke also may require premium fuel. If that matters to you.
Personally I would like the Mazda 3 out of the ones you mentioned. The new CX5 is a good suggestion too but I dont know what they go for.
My wife just got a 2012 Ford Focus hatchback a few months ago, we like it a lot so far. Seeing about 33mpg in mixed conditions.
ST FTW
Daaaaaymn, that's way better than the front end that's on there currently.
^Too bad the ST is still a long way down the pike. It's probably not going to be on sale until fall/winter 2012.
Osterkraut wrote:
belteshazzar wrote:
she's a very successful interior designer, and image is a factor.
She likes how the Juke looks.
Say what?
I think before you get the car, you should stop by the optometrist 
I second the focus. I accidently got a '12 as a rental and it was actually a really great car.
what's your favorite thing about the focus over the Mazda 3?
We really didn't compare the 3, mostly because of all the tech features that the 3 didn't have. We narrowed our choices down to the focus and kia soul (which is truly a lot of car for the money).
Really like the Ford sync, and I actually do like the dct transmission too. The sport seats are comfy and well bolstered, and despite being bigger than the 2003 we replaced...it handles like a focus when you chuck it into turns.
My brother has a 2004 Mazda three and I do really like how it drives too. Unfortunately we didn't test drive the newest one.
(P.s. I like the juke too.)
right now the biggest mark against the Juke is how much everyone else doesn't like how they look.
we both like it.
I had to look up what the Juke was.. I am sorry I did
Nissan should have used a spell checker - should have been an o, not a u.
