Next car?

[William Lemmerhirt]

For sure. The last time it was at the dealer for a recall I had a rental for almost 2 months. "Fast" alone doesn't mean fun Not having to worry about a little abuse because it isn't mine is always fun lol.

Most of the CVTs aren't that different. None of them are bullet proof, none of them are really bad. Nissan has had it the longest and I was under the impression theirs was the best on the road. I drove a few Subarus with the CVT recently and it is pretty decent. No replacement for a manual, but a LOT smoother than an old hydraulic one. Would I own one? For a commuter car, it seems fine to me.

Turbos don't last? I sold my 2004 WRX with 160K on the original motor and turbo on it. My Forester had 150K, original motor/turbo. 80s turbos didn't last because they weren't really taking into account the additional heat, lubrication (no common consumer available synthetic oils back then),and cooling needed. That hasn't been an issue for a long time. Nearly all cars run on full synth these days and turbocharging is extremely well understood at this point.

I don't like driving aids. While it may reduce the information load on the driver, it should not even be necessary for anyone behind the wheel because your entire job is to pay attention to what you're doing. It will make bad drivers even lazier.

Totally agree. I like sensors and warnings, like the lane change assist and cameras, but stop talking, texting, eating, drinking, fiddling with the audio system, or fiddling with some body part, pay attention and drive the damned car!

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DIY Junky]

For sure. The last time it was at the dealer for a recall I had a rental for almost 2 months. "Fast" alone doesn't mean fun Not having to worry about a little abuse because it isn't mine is always fun lol.

Most of the CVTs aren't that different. None of them are bullet proof, none of them are really bad. Nissan has had it the longest and I was under the impression theirs was the best on the road. I drove a few Subarus with the CVT recently and it is pretty decent. No replacement for a manual, but a LOT smoother than an old hydraulic one. Would I own one? For a commuter car, it seems fine to me.

Turbos don't last? I sold my 2004 WRX with 160K on the original motor and turbo on it. My Forester had 150K, original motor/turbo. 80s turbos didn't last because they weren't really taking into account the additional heat, lubrication (no common consumer available synthetic oils back then),and cooling needed. That hasn't been an issue for a long time. Nearly all cars run on full synth these days and turbocharging is extremely well understood at this point.

I don't like driving aids. While it may reduce the information load on the driver, it should not even be necessary for anyone behind the wheel because your entire job is to pay attention to what you're doing. It will make bad drivers even lazier.

Subaru had CVT in the 80s on the Justy … Buy what you guys want.. just giving you a heads up that's all...

 

[panteragstk]

With the exception of Porsche, every manufacturer does it that way. The reason is to optimize manufacturing costs. Having a zillion individual options is very expensive to implement in a high volume production line, which is why there are these annoying packages that group a bunch of seemingly unrelated features together. Given their druthers, the manufacturers would rather let you pick and choose anything you want, because in the end you'll probably spend more than on a package with stuff you don't want. If you want to see how bad the individual option strategy can get, go to the Porsche web site and build a vehicle with the configurator tool. It is so easy to add $30K in options to a $60K base car. You can even get paint color to sample and leather color to sample.

Right, I know that they all do it, but it seems that (at least with some manufacturers) that they've grouped them together more than they used to. That and the fact that I was at a dealer so it was either order a vehicle and pay full MSRP (nope) or get one off the lot. The ones with leather on the lot had much more than just leather package added so the price went way up. I know they do that on purpose, but it's still annoying.

 

[DIY Junky]

Well I'm sold. What a well written, informative post with clear points backed up with real world experience and evidence. I'm so glad you didn't take a skin deep approach to your research either, I would hate it if you just looked at something and determined it's value.

SheepStar

And This is why I laugh when people are broken down on the side of the road .. Maybe I will pass you some day .. I know what breaks and what doesn't.. Buy what you want .. Just giving some input. Crv was a good car.. key word is WAS ….. Walk in the shop and talk to guys who fix them..

 

[Irvrobinson]

And This is why I laugh when people are broken down on the side of the road .. Maybe I will pass you some day .. I know what breaks and what doesn't.. Buy what you want .. Just giving some input. Crv was a good car.. key word is WAS ….. Walk in the shop and talk to guys who fix them..

A neighbor of mine used to own a Toyota and Honda independent specialist shop, and he would always give me a hard time about my Corvettes (at the time) and German cars. I had to hear over and over again about how much more reliable Toyotas and Hondas were. I finally asked him, "If Toyotas and Hondas are so reliable, why are you so rich?" ;-)

 

[Sheep]

And This is why I laugh when people are broken down on the side of the road .. Maybe I will pass you some day .. I know what breaks and what doesn't.. Buy what you want .. Just giving some input. Crv was a good car.. key word is WAS ….. Walk in the shop and talk to guys who fix them..

I work in the shop that fixes them. You might want to check your facts. I mean, the statements in this post show how little you know about cars. The stats that show which cars are reliable and unreliable these days are based around control interfaces and infotainment systems. Cars will be called "unreliable" because they can't figure out how to pair their phone. My parents recently traded their Prius V for a Rav4 Hybrid, and after 70,000kms, the front brakes still had 85% life left, the engine air filter wasn't even dirty. I have to change my oil in the Prius Prime at 12,000kms because it will be old. I'll refill my tank around the 3500-4000kms mark. I mean, if the CVT in a prius is so crappy, why do airport taxis use them almost exclusively and put over a million miles on these cars?

SheepStar
Edit: added more shade.

 

[Sheep]

A neighbor of mine used to own a Toyota and Honda independent specialist shop, and he would always give me a hard time about my Corvettes (at the time) and German cars. I had to hear over and over again about how much more reliable Toyotas and Hondas were. I finally asked him, "If Toyotas and Hondas are so reliable, why are you so rich?" ;-)

More people buying them, for starters.

SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

I don't like driving aids. While it may reduce the information load on the driver, it should not even be necessary for anyone behind the wheel because your entire job is to pay attention to what you're doing. It will make bad drivers even lazier.

I'm sorry, but if you haven't experienced these systems then you really do need to try them out. My radar cruise saved me ass just the other day, and I was paying attention. I had a guy go from tailgating, to aggressive pass, to brake check, and I was following him and preparing to slow down so he didn't clip my bumper on the pass, but the radar braked the appropriate amount to keep me from hitting him.

You cannot expect everyone to be 100% perfect all the time when they're in their car, having these systems in place reduces crashes, and saves lives. Does that mean that bad drivers can become better? Yes. Is that a bad thing at the end of the day? No. The mentality that people should be dying instead of assisted is kind of disgusting.

I remember a buddy of mine lambasting back up cameras, saying only pussies and useless people should have them. They're standard on all cars now, and guess what? He has one too!

Try it out, become informed!

SheepStar

 

[j_garcia]

Subaru had CVT in the 80s on the Justy … Buy what you guys want.. just giving you a heads up that's all...

Justy was a superlight though. It was tiny, with low power, so CVT made sense. Today's cars are a lot bulkier than that little guy. A friend of mine here in Sacramento has one.

 

[Irvrobinson]

More people buying them, for starters.

Yeah, but there's more specialist shops for those marques too. Being technical with cars myself we would discuss what his business looked like, where he made the most gross margin, who his best customers were, etc., and I noticed two factors. One, people with Hondas and Toyotas tended to keep their vehicles longer than typical domestic and euro owners. Second, they were not rigorous about maintenance, and I suspect confused maintenance and repairs. He made a lot of money replacing steering racks, transmissions, radiators, and head gaskets that are indicative of problems in cars that are poorly maintained.

He also did a great business replacing replacing dumb stuff, like headlights, tail lights, broken turn signals, etc that were the subject of fix-it tickets.

For a little while the auto repair business actually tempted me. There is money to be made, but fortunately I came to my senses and pulled back before being really dumb. High tech may be annoying, but it's better than fixing cars for a living.

 

[j_garcia]

I'm sorry, but if you haven't experienced these systems then you really do need to try them out. My radar cruise saved me ass just the other day, and I was paying attention. I had a guy go from tailgating, to aggressive pass, to brake check, and I was following him and preparing to slow down so he didn't clip my bumper on the pass, but the radar braked the appropriate amount to keep me from hitting him.

You cannot expect everyone to be 100% perfect all the time when they're in their car, having these systems in place reduces crashes, and saves lives. Does that mean that bad drivers can become better? Yes. Is that a bad thing at the end of the day? No. The mentality that people should be dying instead of assisted is kind of disgusting.

I remember a buddy of mine lambasting back up cameras, saying only pussies and useless people should have them. They're standard on all cars now, and guess what? He has one too!

Try it out, become informed!

SheepStar

Nobody is 100% perfect. Sorry though, the vast majority of those "aids" were all implemented because people are stupid. Lane assist? really? You need your car to tell you to pay attention enough to keep your car in your lane, as in basic driving 101? Yes, they help and they help with other drivers make mistakes or there are unexpected things like deer, potholes, etc... but at the end of the day, you are in that car and need to own the responsibility of being behind the wheel.

A girl I work with was just rear ended badly last week. The other driver admitted she fell asleep. Yes, driver aids could have prevented that collision, but it would not have SOLVED THE PROBLEM. Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers. Nowhere did I say stupid people should die because they're not capable of driving a car properly, but all those driver aids do not make them better drivers. It will just save their bacon and then they will still be doing the same thing.

My car was hit by a distracted driver in a parking lot.

 

[Sheep]

Yeah, but there's more specialist shops for those marques too. Being technical with cars myself we would discuss what his business looked like, where he made the most gross margin, who his best customers were, etc., and I noticed two factors. One, people with Hondas and Toyotas tended to keep their vehicles longer than typical domestic and euro owners. Second, they were not rigorous about maintenance, and I suspect confused maintenance and repairs. He made a lot of money replacing steering racks, transmissions, radiators, and head gaskets that are indicative of problems in cars that are poorly maintained.

He also did a great business replacing replacing dumb stuff, like headlights, tail lights, broken turn signals, etc that were the subject of fix-it tickets.

For a little while the auto repair business actually tempted me. There is money to be made, but fortunately I came to my senses and pulled back before being really dumb. High tech may be annoying, but it's better than fixing cars for a living.

There is other factors too, likes parts pricing and labour rates. Little shops can buy whatever parts they want, and set their own price. We don't use aftermarket parts unless OEM is discontinued, Back ordered, or deemed too expensive by the customer (some parts are quite expensive, not maintenance items). A small shop can under cut a dealer in almost every way and still be making lots of profit, it's the nature of the game. At the end of the day there is some very good reputable small shops, they exist, but they aren't easy to find, and you do get what you pay for, more often then not.

SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

Nobody is 100% perfect. Sorry though, the vast majority of those "aids" were all implemented because people are stupid. Lane assist? really? You need your car to tell you to pay attention enough to keep your car in your lane, as in basic driving 101? Yes, they help and they help with other drivers make mistakes or there are unexpected things like deer, potholes, etc... but at the end of the day, you are in that car and need to own the responsibility of being behind the wheel.

A girl I work with was just rear ended badly last week. The other driver admitted she fell asleep. Yes, driver aids could have prevented that collision, but it would not have SOLVED THE PROBLEM. Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers. Nowhere did I say stupid people should die because they're not capable of driving a car properly, but all those driver aids do not make them better drivers. It will just save their bacon and then they will still be doing the same thing.

My car was hit by a distracted driver in a parking lot.

I get that, bad drivers should be removed from the roads and then there would be no more accidents. We have an equation, and the final result must be no more accidents. What do you think will be the simpler route, implementing driver aids, or removing all bad drivers? I'm all for removing of bad drivers, it's a privilege not a right, but if you think that will be simple, straight forward, or even remotely possible, I would refer you to the people that support the second amendment and how people react when they talk about removing that.

I 100% agree with your feelings, but I also know that driver aids are the best solution to the base, underlying problem, and that is people dying in car accidents.

SheepStar

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Interesting. I've never seen those videos before. Thanks for the links.

Old UK top gear are golden. Anything from season 3 and newer (until 3 hosts left to start Grand Tour) was awesome!

 

[DIY Junky]

Justy was a superlight though. It was tiny, with low power, so CVT made sense. Today's cars are a lot bulkier than that little guy. A friend of mine here in Sacramento has one.

That is all I am trying to say.. Is CVTs cant' take the abuse of the cars they are putting them in today. Again Buy what you want .. Don't care

 

[DIY Junky]

I work in the shop that fixes them. You might want to check your facts. I mean, the statements in this post show how little you know about cars. The stats that show which cars are reliable and unreliable these days are based around control interfaces and infotainment systems. Cars will be called "unreliable" because they can't figure out how to pair their phone. My parents recently traded their Prius V for a Rav4 Hybrid, and after 70,000kms, the front brakes still had 85% life left, the engine air filter wasn't even dirty. I have to change my oil in the Prius Prime at 12,000kms because it will be old. I'll refill my tank around the 3500-4000kms mark. I mean, if the CVT in a prius is so crappy, why do airport taxis use them almost exclusively and put over a million miles on these cars?

SheepStar
Edit: added more shade.

Yup Its the new CVR that's sucks watch and wait long term … No need to explain to you what I do or don't know when I know that I am right .. Don't care what you think

 

[Sheep]

Yup Its the new CVR that's sucks watch and wait long term … No need to explain to you what I do or don't know when I know that I am right .. Don't care what you think

CVR? VCR? Do I rewind it?

SheepStar

Edit: https://www.quora.com/Are-Hondas-CVTs-reliable-in-a-long-term

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Never had new cars before about 4 years ago, then I leased my outback. I needed larger car at the time (still do) and outback fited the bill (still does).
Original 2015 cvt trans wasn't terrible, but it's much better now in 2018 model.
Driving assists: originally bought for much less experienced driver wifey, but I have to agree they allow more relaxed driving experience, while still staying safe on the road. Not huge fan of some minor bugs with newer entertainment system. I wish subaru would switch to more powerful and more efficient engine than current 3.6l boxer, but it's like energizer bunny - it just goes. It is nearly bulletproof at this point.

 

[KEW]

Nobody is 100% perfect. Sorry though, the vast majority of those "aids" were all implemented because people are stupid.

Yes people are stupid. If you can fix that, it would indeed be the most best-est solution ever!!! However, until we can fix that "root cause", why not reduce the consequences of our stupidity. I see these devices as a logical extension of seatbelts, air bags, traction control, and anti-lock braking - all reduce (and, often eliminate) the consequences of peoples failure to exercise the best judgement in all situations.

A girl I work with was just rear ended badly last week. The other driver admitted she fell asleep. Yes, driver aids could have prevented that collision, but it would not have SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

Why wouldn't you consider it a better world if that girl had never been hit, and the woman who fell asleep woke up because her car slammed on the brakes instead of from hitting the girl's car? I just can't understand what your objective is in not wanting to use a preventive measure!

Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers. Nowhere did I say stupid people should die because they're not capable of driving a car properly, but all those driver aids do not make them better drivers. It will just save their bacon and then they will still be doing the same thing.

Why do you care so much if they keep doing the same thing if there are no consequences?

My car was hit by a distracted driver in a parking lot.

...and I have to ask why you would not have rather they had a system to brake so your car never got hit. I am impressed by your commitment to this philosophy such that you prefer sacrificing your car to their having used an assist!

 

[j_garcia]

Yes people are stupid. If you can fix that, it would indeed be the most best-est solution ever!!! However, until we can fix that "root cause", why not reduce the consequences of our stupidity. I see these devices as a logical extension of seatbelts, air bags, traction control, and anti-lock braking - all reduce (and, often eliminate) the consequences of peoples failure to exercise the best judgement in all situations.

Airbags saved my life no question. But seatbelts and airbags aren't the same as driver aids. There are instances where these things help from unexpected events that might have resulted in an accident. That's NOT why they're being implemented. Judgement? Too many people just don't take it seriously. Instead of teaching people to drive, we compensate with electronics, which are also not 100% infallible (less than humans of course). YES, we are directly on a path to self driving cars. I live smack dab in the heart of self driving car technology. I am actually FOR self driving cars to some extent, because I think it will help reduce traffic and accidents, but I also like to drive so when I want to drive, I don't need the car telling me what to do.

So explain this... why wouldn't you consider it a better world if that girl had never been hit, and the woman who fell asleep woke up because her car slammed on the brakes instead of from hitting the girl's car? I just can't understand what your objective is in not wanting to use a preventive measure!

Why do you care so much if they keep doing the same thing if there are no consequences?

No consequences? That's like saying I will keep drinking until my liver fails because I was still alive until it did, or I'll keep hitting myself in the head with a hammer because it didn't kill me the first time. That's not logic either, nor does it address the issue. The accident was preventable and should not have happened and yes I would have preferred that it didn't happen.

...and I have to ask why you would not have rather they had a system to brake so your car never got hit. I am impressed by your commitment to this philosophy such that you prefer sacrificing your car to their having used an assist!

I'd rather live in a world where people didn't need assists. She didn't hit it because she had kids in the car or spilled coffee in her lap. She hit it because she was on the phone and late for an appointment. So the assist saves my car, but eventually she will do something that the car doesn't prevent and there will be a more serious accident and people will get injured or worse because she didn't learn anything from from that near miss.