Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / November 2009
Results of Weekend Shopping for a New Car For My Mother
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C. E. White - 18 Oct 2009 16:38 GMT Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my Mother to replace a Ford Freestyle that was totaled in an accident. I mostly was looking for advice regarding the Toyota Venza and Highlander. Well we finally went shopping and my Mother is getting a new Highlander.
We visited dealerships for Toyota, Honda, and Ford. We eliminated Nissan and GM from the shopping trip before we began, Where my Mother lives there are not any other choices within reasonable driving distance.
We started out at the Toyota Dealership. First car was a Venza. I really liked this, but my Mother seemed completely uninterested. I am not sure why, but it was pretty much out of the running immediately. Next was the Highlander. This seemed to be an immediate hit. My Mother didn't want the third row seat, but it seems that is almost a universal option. I still preferred the Venza, but I wasn't the buyer.
Next we visited the Honda dealer. The Pilot was immediately eliminated as wildly overpriced. My Mother liked the CR-V but it seems that dealers load them all up with options that jack up the price. To get one equipped reasonably you ended up with a sun roof my Mother didn't want and a price higher than the Highlander.
The Ford dealer was last on the list. We immediately dismissed the Flex as too weird. My Sister liked the Edge and tried to find reasons why my Mother should get it. Unfortunately the dealer had none properly equipped for my Mother. The MSRP on the Edge was the highest of the vehicles we considered, but there were rebates that made the price competitive with the Highlander and the CR-V. I was really impressed with the new Taurus and thought my Mother should consider it, but She was firm in wanting something taller. I'll add a few comments oon the Taurus later.
So in the end we finally settled on the Highlander. The Highlander was the cheapest of the vehicles (4 cylinder, cloth seats, third row seats). The CR-V was the most expensive, noisiest, smallest, but best equipped (leather seats, sun roof, electronic temperature control). The Edge had the best seating, biggest, most powerful engine, most attractive (to me), but got the worst gas mileage, and was hard to find properly equipped for my Mother. All the dealerships were very co-operative and none were busy. I believe my Mother will be happy with the Highlander. It is a little dull, but it has good room, decent gas mileage and the reliability is likely to be comparable to the Fords she is used to (can't be better, since she hasn't had a problem with a Ford in a decade). I was in agreement with the Highlander as the best choice. It was the closest of the vehicles to the Freestyle (aka Taurus X) that she owned. Too bad Ford decided to stop making those, I think if they still made them, we would have just got another.
While the salesmen at the Ford dealer were trying to find a suitable Edge, I sent a long time looking at a new Taurus. The one I looked at was a very expensive Limited model with almost every option. It was $35K....way more than I would consider paying for the car. Still, it was very nice. Looks great, well assembled. My only gripe is with the width of the center console. I can't figure why companies (not just Ford) have to install consoles that eat up a third of the front passenger space. Because of the ridiculously wide console, the hip space available to front seat passengers is no better than in my much smaller Fusion. Other than this, I really liked the car. If I was in the market for a new car, I'd definitely be interested in a new Taurus - but not a Limited!
Ed
Ashton Crusher - 18 Oct 2009 23:14 GMT >Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my Mother to >replace a Ford Freestyle that was totaled in an accident. I mostly was >looking for advice regarding the Toyota Venza and Highlander. Well we >finally went shopping and my Mother is getting a new Highlander I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective?
Sharx35 - 19 Oct 2009 00:55 GMT >>Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my Mother to >>replace a Ford Freestyle that was totaled in an accident. I mostly was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an > SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? For parking lot bumper car?
Stewart - 19 Oct 2009 04:39 GMT >>Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my >>Mother to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an > SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? Maybe it was a preference as opposed to a technical need.
C. E. White - 19 Oct 2009 12:34 GMT >>Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my >>Mother to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an > SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? First of all, the Highlnader is not an SUV. You might get away with calling it a "Crossover" but in no way is it an SUV. In my opinion, it is nothing more than a Camry Station Wagon. Of the vehicles we looked at, the Edge was the closest thing to an SUV and it wasn't particularly close, although Ford tries to pitch it as one. The Venza is called a car, but the only substantial difference between it and the Highlander is the height of the roof and the level of standard equipment. The CR-V would like to pretend to be an SUV, but it misses the mark by hundreds of miles. It is just a Civic Station Wagon with an AWD option. Even the Pilot, although a nice vehicle, can't be considered a legitimate SUV. Anything that is primarily front wheel drive and has very limited towing capacity is just a station wagon (or I guess a "Crossover" which in my mind is the new name for "Station Wagon").
My Mother never said she wanted an SUV. She just wanted something that she could sit up in and see out of. Until she got a Freestyle, my Mother always drove a full size vehicles (Galaxie, LTD, Grand Marquis, etc.). The Freestyle was the smallest car she had ever owned, and at least it gave her a decent view. Most cars that claim to be full size these days wouldn't have qaulified as an intermediate in the 60's and they all tend to place you very low and don't provide a very good view of the road in a world dominated by large trucks and SUVs (my Mom lives in a rural area and more than half the vehicles are large trucks or SUVs).
Anyhow, if you think a front wheel drive, four cylinder Highlander is an SUV, I think you are using a different definition of an SUV than would be reasonable.
Ed
Ashton Crusher - 20 Oct 2009 02:52 GMT >>>Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my >>>Mother to [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Ed I know nothing about Highlanders except that I've seen pictures of them. Sounds like you got her what she needed.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 20 Oct 2009 04:12 GMT >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? > > First of all, the Highlnader is not an SUV. You might get away with > calling it a "Crossover That's what it's marketed as. Two or 4WD, but around here they run 5-1 in favor of AWD.
Ed White - 20 Oct 2009 18:43 GMT > >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an > >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's what it's marketed as. Two or 4WD, but around here they run 5-1 in > favor of AWD. On the Toyota webpage it is in the SUV section, but they don't have a crossover section.
At the dealers we looked at they had plenty of 2WD or AWD (seemed to be more 2WD than AWD). My Mother lives in a relatively flat area, it snows no more than a few days a year, and she has no need to go on bad dirt roads. Her Freestyle was AWD, but I don't think she knew or cared and I saw no reason to pay extra for AWD for the new Highlander. If things are bad enough that 4WD is required, she still has my Dad's '99 4WD Ranger available.
Ed
Sharx35 - 21 Oct 2009 03:40 GMT >> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >> >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ed Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles?
dr_jeff - 21 Oct 2009 15:10 GMT >>> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >>> >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? It's not her Ranger. It's her husband's. Apparently, she needs her own car.
Jeff
C. E. White - 22 Oct 2009 04:04 GMT >>>> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >>>> >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's not her Ranger. It's her husband's. Apparently, she needs her own > car. Actually it is my Mother's (my Father passed away a few years back). But as I said in another post, it is old and beat up and not really the sort of vehicle a little old lady uses to haul her friends to their bridge games.
Ed
Ray O - 22 Oct 2009 05:13 GMT <snipped>
>>> Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ed Come to think of it, I don't see many little old ladies riding the back of truck beds...
 Signature
Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
Joe - 22 Oct 2009 05:35 GMT >> It's not her Ranger. It's her husband's. Apparently, she needs her own >> car. > > Actually it is my Mother's (my Father passed away a few years back). But as > I said in another post, it is old and beat up and not really the sort of > vehicle a little old lady uses to haul her friends to their bridge games. Why not? Plenty of room in the back for plenty of the old ninnies... ;-)
 Signature Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X
Stewart - 22 Oct 2009 02:47 GMT >> On Oct 19, 11:12 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >>> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? My brother has 7 vehicles. I have know people with many more.
Kevin - 23 Oct 2009 00:36 GMT >> ... >>> On Oct 19, 11:12 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...@e86.GTS> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > My brother has 7 vehicles. I have know people with many more. heck I have three rangers with out counting anyother of my other stuff. KB
 Signature THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Sharx35 - 23 Oct 2009 11:55 GMT >>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > heck I have three rangers with out counting anyother of my other > stuff. KB Little wonder that consumer debt is at an all time high and the savings rate is at an all time low. Does anyone here know what FRUGAL means?
Stewart - 24 Oct 2009 02:18 GMT >>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > savings rate is at an all time low. Does anyone here know what > FRUGAL means? Rebuilding old cars is an industrious endevor.
Sharx35 - 24 Oct 2009 12:10 GMT >>>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Rebuilding old cars is an industrious endevor. No question about it. Far too many fools just dump a vehicle after 2 to 4 years, literally throwing away tens of thousands of dollars in depreciation.
Stewart - 26 Oct 2009 01:16 GMT >>>>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > to 4 years, literally throwing away tens of thousands of dollars in > depreciation. Yeah, he has 1 failry new Hyundai, the others range from 49 to 35 years old. All American Motors Rambler Classics/Ambassador/Marlin.
Sharx35 - 26 Oct 2009 01:31 GMT >>>>>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Yeah, he has 1 failry new Hyundai, the others range from 49 to 35 years > old. All American Motors Rambler Classics/Ambassador/Marlin. AMC product. Hmm, you'll have enough to keep you busy until the 22nd century.
clare@snyder.on.ca - 26 Oct 2009 03:13 GMT >>>>>>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >AMC product. Hmm, you'll have enough to keep you busy until the 22nd >century. Actually, some of the best stuff out there. Ecclectic, and interesting.
Sharx35 - 26 Oct 2009 06:01 GMT >>>>>>>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Actually, some of the best stuff out there. Ecclectic, and > interesting. Ah, yes. AMC had the first passenger car with reclining front seats, did it not?
Kevin - 24 Oct 2009 15:35 GMT >>>> "Ed White" <ce.white3@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:856ff4de-f170-4411-a2a0- [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > all of my stuff is all paid for. no new stuff here. I wager I have less in all 3 than most have in one. KB
 Signature THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Hachiroku ハチロク - 23 Oct 2009 00:44 GMT >> Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? >> > My brother has 7 vehicles. I have know people with many more. Hey. I ain't yer brother!
Stewart - 23 Oct 2009 04:29 GMT >>> Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? >>> >> My brother has 7 vehicles. I have know people with many more. > > Hey. I ain't yer brother! Well, 5 are registered as classics....
C. E. White - 22 Oct 2009 04:02 GMT >>> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >>> >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Having the Ranger, why does she need to have TWO vehicles? The Ranger is 11 years old and beat to crap. However, we use it on the farm for typical farm things. It is not worth a lot but is very useful for farm chores. It would not be suitable for my Mom and her bridge laying buddies.
Ed
C. E. White - 22 Oct 2009 04:06 GMT >>>> >> I'm not disagreeing with your mom's choice but why does she need an >>>> >> SUV?? What were her needs from a technical perspective? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > farm chores. It would not be suitable for my Mom and her bridge laying > buddies. I meant bridge playing...not laying. I suppose a Ranger would be a good vehicle for someone building a bridge :)
Ed
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Oct 2009 20:02 GMT > It would not be suitable for my Mom and her bridge laying > buddies. I would think someone who does bridge laying would want a dump truck! ;p
Brian Smith - 19 Oct 2009 00:58 GMT > Earlier this month I asked for advice regarding a new car for my Mother > to replace a Ford Freestyle that was totaled in an accident. I mostly [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > than this, I really liked the car. If I was in the market for a new car, > I'd definitely be interested in a new Taurus - but not a Limited! If you preferred the Venza (as stated in the third paragraph of your post), why would you be interested in a Taurus? Does bad judgment run in your family?
My apologies for leaving Ed's entire post in my reply, I did it to back up what I referred to in my response.
dr_jeff - 19 Oct 2009 01:02 GMT <...>
> If you preferred the Venza (as stated in the third paragraph of your > post), why would you be interested in a Taurus? Does bad judgment run in > your family? He thought the Venza was a better choice for his mother, not himself. For himself, he liked the Taurus.
Jeff
> My apologies for leaving Ed's entire post in my reply, I did it to > back up what I referred to in my response. Brian Smith - 19 Oct 2009 02:14 GMT > He thought the Venza was a better choice for his mother, not himself. > For himself, he liked the Taurus. He didn't say that about the Venza at all.
dr_jeff - 19 Oct 2009 02:53 GMT >> He thought the Venza was a better choice for his mother, not himself. >> For himself, he liked the Taurus. > > He didn't say that about the Venza at all. Perhaps not. But it was clear from the context, perhaps including previous posts.
C. E. White - 19 Oct 2009 12:50 GMT > If you preferred the Venza (as stated in the third paragraph of your > post), why would you be interested in a Taurus? Does bad judgment > run in your family? Why won't I be intereseted in the Taurus. It seemed to be a nice car, very well assembled, and I am confident it would be at least as reliable as the Toyota Venza. I liked the Venza too, but more for my Mother than for me. She likes station wagons and the Venza seemed to meet her needs. There is no longer a Taurus wagon. I did at least get her to sit in the Taurus. She said it was a nice car, but I think she didn't like it for the same reason she didn't like the Venza. She wanted to sit up higher, which is why we ended up with the Highlander (which has essentially the same drive train as the Venza, but is just a little taller). As I said, if Ford still offered new Freestyles (or the Taurus X) we probably would have ended up in one of those. However, given my Mother's stated desires, it seems to me she purchased the best vehicle.
My family as owned Fords for decades. I personaly have a Fusion and an F150. Neither has had even one problem. The Fusion has 60k trouble free miles. Given my very good experiences with Ford and my very poor past personal experience with Toyotas, why wouldn't I consider a Taurus? I know that current Toyota are a lot better than the junk they sold 20 years ago, so I have no concerns about my Mother buying one. Heck, if they made something I liked, I consider buying one also (for sure if I wanted a Station Wagon, the Venza would still be my number one choice).
Ed
Jim Warman - 19 Oct 2009 04:49 GMT See what you started now, ya old fart????? 8^)
C. E. White - 26 Oct 2009 13:49 GMT I actually drove the new Highlander this past weekend and I thought I pass along my impressions:
The good:
- 4 cylinder engine has decent power and it moves the car just fine - not much different than the V6 Freestyle it replaced, but ....(see below) - Transmission seemed flawless - Great seats, better than the Freestyle - Controls much better than the RAV4's my Sisters own. I think Toyota should fire the guys that did the RAV4 and let the Highlander guys redo them. I do wonder about the Japanese obsession with HUGE control knobs,. Does anyone need a 2.5" diameter knob to tune the radio? It is like something from a WWII Shot Wave Radio (ditto forf the other knobs). (see below) - Third seat is very easy to raise lower, much better than the Freestyles...but (see below). It worked like the third row seat in my 2003 Expedition (but easier to reach, but not split) - Smooth ride but .... (see below) - Interior is ver spacious - For only a couple of thousand more than a similar RAV4, you get a much better vehicle - I wonder how many RAV4 buyer ough to look at the Highlander - I was really happy with how much car my Mother got for the money
The bad:
- The 4 cylinder engine is very noisy - much louder than the V6 in the Freestyle. The engine noise is very noticeable, especially since the vehicle is otherwise very quiet. It is not too bad at a highway cruise, but very noticeable when accelerating. - While the ride is very smooth, the car is awfully "floaty." Reminds me of some of the old Chryler stuff or the Grand Marquis my Mother used to own. This won't be a problem for my Mother but I'd like soemthing a little tighter. Manybe the suspension fior ther "Sport Model" would suit me better. - Although the controls are better than the RAV4's, they could use some improvement. The knobs and buttons for the radio and HVAC are all big and shiny and not particularly well laid out. The industrial designers need to tone this down, Form should follow function. The controls should not look like some bizarre modern art sculpture. This is something the Japanese designers are addicted to and it is starting to influence American designers. The controls in my current (2009) F150 are showing this influence. They are easily the worst I've ever had in a US designed vehcile (but still not as bad as the RAV4s my sisters own). The F150 has two many big knobs arranged in some sort of pattern that is not really related to the function. They are arranged to look cool. And this cool looking arangement is just silly. There are decades of study available on how to do controls and the Toyota designers have tried to ignore all of them (Honda is just as bad, and apparently Ford is copy catting the bad ideas becasue they think it is what sells). - Although the third row seat is much easier to deploy than the seat in the Freestyle my Mother used to own, this ease comes at a price. The Freestyle seat was a complicated arrangement that folded into a well at the rear of the car and it had no significant effect on the cargo load height. When the Freestyle seat was raised, there was a huge well at the rear of the car that my Mother found perfect for groceries. There is no well behind the Highlander's third row seat. It folds on itself (thinner cushions than the Freestyle) and the rear cargo floor is higher than it could have been with the Freestyle type seat. It is a trade off. Given the choice, I'd go with the Highlander stlye seat, but I think my Mother wishes it was more like the one in the Freestyle (which she could not deploy herself...I always had to do it for her). I think the Highlander third seat is potentially more useful, but I doubt it will see much use. Still it is very easy to raise and lower. It would have been nice if it was split so you could raise half at a time, but this is only a minor (very minor) complaint.
Ed
C. E. White - 01 Nov 2009 20:00 GMT Well my Mother finally had a complaint about the new Highlander - she didn't like the cruise control switch. Otherwise the car is great. I do wander why Toyotauses that weird crusie control switch.
Ed
|
|
|