These days you can buy pretty much the same car from an auto maker’s different divisions. Whether it be Ford Fusion vs. Lincoln MkZ, Toyota Camry vs. Lexus ES350, or even BMW 328i vs. BMW 528i, you have the option of loading up a lower-priced model to exceed the features of its higher cost, but bare-bones, sibling, at a price that is comparable.
While there remains intangible benefits to having the more prestigious brand, substituting value over repute may be prudent, especially if one is less label-conscious. Alternatively, resale value on higher-end brands trend to be better than their less-aspirational brethren, so there could be long-term benefit to sucking it up and paying for the brand and not the features.
So, the question is: At a similar cost, which is better, buying a feature-rich cheap car, or a less well-equipped expensive car?
Image Source: [Netshowcars.com]
I have little use for creature comforts, and thus would choose whichever was more fun to drive. Regardless, I rarely buy vehicles that offer badge engineered alternatives.
Value to me is features/performance over anything else. I would take a Sonata SE V6 over an Accord EX any day.
The lightly-optioned, more expensive car is usually the better long-term financial decision, since my experience shows that fancy add-ons depreciate more quickly (and more fully) than the vehicle itself. The running gear is king.
But I live in a household with two fully-optioned “cheap cars” (Passat GLX), which is a nice way of getting all the goodies from a higher-end platform mate for a lot less cash (in my case, the Audi A4). But both were bought used, so my first paragraph doesn’t hold as much water. But I still stand behind it for my future purchases.
I meant to add that factory options are also way more expensive than most aftermarket mods.
Buy the lightly-optioned car, mod it with aftermarket bits, then later sell the mods and the car separately. This both saves money and gives you more flexibility against obselescence and boredom
Wrong question. I would rather buy an American car built by a Japanese company at the same price point.
I am much more about the features than the name on the trunk. If I'm paying x dollars for a car, I'm going to get the most I can for the money. I would never buy a decontented luxury version of a car when I could buy the same basic car decked out with leather and a sunroof for the same amount of dough. One thing you do have to consider is that the lux versions do often drive differently, have different engine options, or features that are just unavailable at any cost on the lesser version. One could say that the Acura RDX is based on the $15k cheaper CR-V, but you can't get that sweet turbo 4 from the Honda store in any trim level. Bottom line to me is that it's difficult to make a blanket rule on this subject as there are too many different factors, and each manufacturer differs considerably.
The problem I have with "most features for the money" when it comes to newer cars is the risk of what corners were cut to be able to offer more (GPS/Nav, heated/cooled seats/mirrors/wheel/whatever) for the same price as another brand offering fewer items.
Sometimes it's needless markup, sometimes it's 1/2 the engineering budget.
Since I can't bring myself to buy anything worthwhile new, I'll have to say "Feature rich cheap car". Since the average cost of a new car is $28,400 (per FTC.gov as of 4/24/2009), I am looking for something that costs less that $28k. I will actually be looking for a new (to us) car in about 2 years, when the beneficiary of my life insurance graduates college.
Looking a Craigslist for shopping list for today's imaginary tire kicking trip I see the following contenders all solidly below the $28k price point. Caveats for this vehicle include passing the spousal approval test – it has to be fast, fun, manually shifted, and preferably with a back seat).
That opens up all sorts of entertaining possibilities.
BMW: e46 M3 or M Coupe or M5 (v8 – I forgot the model designator)
Porsche: Boxster S or 996 series 911
Chevrolet: C5 Z-06 or even a normal C6
Cadillac: 2006-ish CTS-V <– the likely next car
Pontiac: G8 GXP
Jaguar: Potentially some R series deal, the autospastic transmission is a likely deal-breaker
Mercedes: C55 AMG, CL55, same deal, would need to be compelling enough to get beyond the autotragic transmission
Anyone else choosing like me? I think I'd have to kill myself if forced to drive a CamCordibu; the days suffering through the purgatory of rentals are enough to convince me I'm on the right path.
This just from a cursory look-see. All the above vehicles are well within the purchase budget. Maintenance isn't too big a concern as our current steed Saab 9000 Aero costs us a Hyundai payment to keep running strong year in and year out.
These are all cars that I daydream about purchasing once I finish grad school and get a job. Though I would throw in the 05-06 GTO with the LS2 as a cheaper alternative to the CTS-V but looking at your other choices I suppose that might be a little boy-racerish for your tastes.
The basic premise of this whole site is this idea.
"For the price of [something lame] you could get a slightly used [something awesome]"
Maintenance can be an issue…but hey, life is short, right?
Indeed! Life is too short to drive boring cars.
Yeah, the maintenance thing can be a little shocking if you think about it too much (e.g. the car is worth maybe $5k, yet we spend $1-2k/year in repairs). However, the acceleration and ride is so fun that it's well worth it. Besides, the look on the faces of Audi and BMW drivers being passed is great as we scoot by with a heavy woosh from the blow off valve as we're shifting back into 5th and already carrying 20 mph as we clear their front bumper. tee hee
I'm always against the "the car is only worth $###, so why pay $### to fix it" arguments.
Regardless of what the car's worth, you can't replace it for the cost of the fix you're about to pay for. The best thing about bottom-feeder cars is that they don't depreciate. Pretty much anything under $5k, you sell it for what you bought it for, provided nothing major goes wrong.
The other thing to keep in mind with this argument it that options depreciate even faster than the rest of the car.If there is a 40% difference between the base model and the loaded model prices, it will probably be a20% or less difference used. This applies a little less to really important options like engines, but that $900 sun roof won't be adding much to the used price.
For me it depends on how big of a difference there is between the brands. Between a Ford and a Mercury I might take the Mercury, but between a Ford and a Lincoln I'm predisposed towards the Ford.
If it's not for sporting purposes, I like my cars to be as loaded as I can get them. There's something to me about having a car that represents "the state of the art" for its time. Stripped down models will always have their place and purpose and worth for admiration. But it seems the classic cars that always stand out are the ones that have the rare, weird, outdated, and/or gimmicky options. I love looking at an old car as a time capsule that represents what we as a society were capable of and lusting for. What had value to society? What did some engineers think would sell well? What represented "out of left field" thinking? What kind of technology allowed it to happen?
Since I keep my cars "forever" by most standards, and take better care of them than most, I try to get them loaded up just in case they become "that car" at the show someday. To me a luxury label is – in too many cases – mostly about pretense and sizzle without steak. I'd rather pay the same money for the best vehicle I can get, and let the discerning folks out there appreciate it for the value it is (and was).
My example from three years ago illustrates my thought process:
A replacement for the GTI is needed. The car should be a small to medium wagon with all-wheel drive, a manual transmission, and have an engine that is somewhat peppy. Used is preferred. The decision is between a Subaru Legacy GT or an Audi A4 (preferably the 1.8). Manual transmissions are few and far between but one A4 with 40k miles on the clock became available from a private seller two hours away. I drove it home and got a bonus set of Nokian snows as part of the deal.
There are too many variables to be able to decide. For example, Fusion/Milan/MKZ…. My buddy wants the MKZ (used) because he liked his Fusion (leased) and to replace it wants something that has a few little extras. He knows they're the same car, but just for whatever reason, driving the Lincoln will make him feel better about the car. And, right or wrong, isn't that what it's all about? Enjoying what you drive?
For me, it usually comes down to styling and performance. Don't care what brand it is, as long as I like the way it looks, and has the best engine in it! So, to answer your question: feature-rich cheap car. Every time.
Fusion/Milan/Zephyr is a good example. I usually prefer the look and feel of the Ford.
Personally I would go for the Milan. Nice enough to edge itself from the Fusion but not too laden with old people/rich fart stereotype like the Zephyr/MKZ/Whateverthefucktheycallitthesedays.
I know that probably no one will like what I'm about to say, but I think these three comments are one reason why badge engineering isn't so bad after all. My buddy wants a MKZ, for his own reasons, Tiberiuswise prefers the Ford, FTGDHoonEdition, the Milan.
I do agree. But I still don't agree. There isn't enough real stuff to differentiate a Mercury from Ford. It has always been the tarted up Ford brand. Why not just scrap it and offer it as a trim level as part of Ford?
p.s: The only reason I like the Milan better is that it actually looks better than the equivalent Gillette razor style Ford Fusion. And maybe slightly better interiors. But there is no reason to have a whole separate brand for it. Buick actually has more differentiation from Chevy than Mercury has from Ford.
Same response here, I agree with you too, but not entirely. There really is nothing really different between the two at all, but…… if someone doesn't like the Fusion's styling, and wouldn't consider it for that reason, then give it a different grille, different taillights, more standard equipment (maybe) and sell it at a Lincoln-Mercury dealership. Maybe that gives you more buyers, for the least amount of investment.
Agreed, Buick has more differentiation then Chevy, and that's a good thing too, but then the business decision comes into play, because how much more did it cost to get those other buyers? New dashboards and sheet metal stamping equipment are expensive, so how much more went into the development to get those extra buyers?
Of course, it's also public opinion of the brand, and what that does to long-term viability, etc.
Either way, I think it's an interesting topic… maybe a good one to debate over a couple of beers!
Is there any way to answer this question by saying "Citroen CX?" Just curious.
Sure! Looks like a decent car.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Citroen-GTI-1987-C...
Here's an automatique, if that is your fancy.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Citroen-CX-2500-Pr...
Were it me, I'd be after a DS or SM, but then I'm a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey / glutton for punishment.
Personally, given the option, I'd vote for "all of the above". In other words, if I had narrowed it down to wanting a Fusion/MKZ, I would determine the price I was willing to pay for it, and wait until I could have the fully loaded MKZ for that price. If I had to wait a year, then that's fine. But I refuse to compromise any more on any of my car-buying decisions. I have done it too many times in the past, and regretted it every single time.
Quite so. Around our house, we apply similar logic to the maintenance component … For the price of paying a shop to do X repair, we can buy Y tools.
I have pretty much free reign from The_Missus for buying tools that I'll be able to hang on to.
When it comes to DIY Vs Shop, there are 3 deciding factors:
1) Price of parts Vs price of parts + Labor. i.e. if it's not much more to have someone do it…
2) How urgent is the service needed. i.e. must get done this week, or else…and it's a busy week.
3) How likely am I to screw it up in a way that requires a full-price (or more) redo.
Example: Clutch goes out on my daily driver, I'm having it done at a shop. Labor at a shop isn't much more than the parts, it takes a long time to do it in my driveway compared to on a lift, and it's easy for me to screw things up.
I like your 3 factors (especially having screwed up enough to require professional intervention) and would include a fourth – how much do I like the car? I'm much more inclined to let someone else wrench on Mrs. Alf's minivan than I am on any of my toys.
Ah. Hadn't occurred to me, as I love all of my cars
Come to think of it, we had no problem letting Jiffy Lube do changes on The_Missus's Dodge Ram.
Not sure if Crown Vic Vs Towncar is the best way to illustrate the concept, but for me it's definitely "Cheap Expensive Car".
…not so much in terms of luxury, but in terms of capability or sheer awesomeness. I'd rather pick up a used 3/4 truck than a newer 1/2 ton. I'd rather drive a 25 year old (but properly maintained) BMW than a 5 year old Toyota. In general, I'll take on the increased hassle that comes with getting "more car for cheaper".
You guys realize you have a Poll function on the page right?
[polldaddy 2206000 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2206000/ polldaddy]
No one's keeping score here. It's more like rhythmic gymnastics.
…and the unfathomable French always skew the results…
[polldaddy 2206082 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2206082/ polldaddy]
Upwards badge-engineering makes me feel like I'm getting hosed, so I'd never choose, for example, an MKZ over a Fusion. The two most egregious examples are the Passat CC and whatever that Mercedes coupesedansledthingy is that's basically a tarted-up E-class.
If I were to shop for a BWM 3-series, which I will not be ever, I'd buy in at newer/decontented/cheaper because you're still getting the excellent engineering, just without the burden of real leather seats, twin-turbos, or whatever else. As for the Lexus ES, were I to find myself contemplating one of those over a Camry, I'd head out to the woods and reorganize the contents of my melon with a twelve-guage.
My next major car crisis may well be Volkswagen GTI vs TDI.
A more apt example would be simply the people who buy the CC over the Passat, which bothers the sh*t out of me for some reason. Especially since VW so egregiously changed the name from “Passat CC” to just “CC” after one year.
“Okay, let’s see…can I get the same platform, performance, one fewer seat, less interior space, lower visibility, and little bit fancier interior color? Cool, thanks. Now can I pay you an extra $7k-$8k for it? Sweet!”
Okay, how do you feel about downwards badge-engineering, like the MDX (2001) begatting the Pilot (2002)? Take the initial car, or wait for the down market derivative?
That's a rare case that worked (as was the Altima and possibly Lincoln LS) but it doesn't happen often.
Pay for the engineering, not the gewgaws and badging. So neither, really, but "cheap expensive car" is closer.
I love the GTO on paper. Killer power, nondescript styling, under $20k.
It's difficult to see it turning into a bit of a white-trash halo car. I can't help but think of silly tattoos and bad Nu Metal whenever I see the avatars GTO boards…let alone the drivers in person.
Oh, man. Why'd you have to go there? I haven't even adapted the flying chicken to my hood yet and there you go getting all mullet on GTO owners.
My daily driver is an SVT Focus complete with HID headlights. What do you think?
Freakin' awesome! I drive a 03' SVTF Euro Coupe as a daily driver. What more can you want?
2.0L I4 – 170hp (Mine has a Jackson S/C – ~ 210 fwhp)
6spd -MT
17" Alloys
Heated Seats
Heated Mirrors
ABS
TCS
6 CD Changer
Recaro Seats
Engine block heater
Cruise Control
Sunroof
HIDs
And I didn't pay a dime over $10.5k for a slightly used car at the time ('05) with about 14k miles on it from a FoMoCo employee. And it came with a 3yr/36k bumper to bumper warranty; 5yr/100k powertrain warranty. The only problems so far: 1 – Sunroof failure; 1- Clutch cylinder explosion. All taken care of, with a free courtesy car thanks to SVT.
Couldn't ask for more. End of.
I like simple cars, hence the Sport TJ and the baseline (read stripped as far as possible) Vibe. I like buying used and getting as much value/style/fun as I can for the money.
I'm a huge fan of gewgaws and nicknacks. Between the loaded GLI at $28k and the barebones $25k A3, I'd have the GLI.
No, I don't need heated windshield washing nozzles for anything, ever. But I need them.
Drive an Avalon, and then drive a Lexus ES. (Yes, I know I'm talking about Toyotas here, but bear with me) There is a pretty significant difference in feel between them, even though people will tell you the ES is just an Avalon with different sheetmetal and a Lexus badge. The Lexus just feels like a smooth, comfy, quiet, vault on wheels. The Toyota is close, but doesn't get there.
Also, Scion xB/xD vs. Corolla. Yeah, the two-letter hipmobiles have power locks/windows/mirrors, fancy cd players, and funky designs. But there is no comparison on the freeway – a conversation from the front to back seat is difficult in either Scion, but there are no raised voices in the Corolla. Sound deadening was apparently sacrificed for nifty gizmos.
For me? I desperately want to say cheap expensive car. If I knew a little more about wrenching and a little less about video games, I'd definitely lean that way. But when something breaks on your Lexus, it's going to cost you more than the same part on your Toyota. So at this point, boring and reliable wins. But not for long…
For me, I would look at this on a car by car basis. I value options, and would not be afraid to drive a smaller car. Thus, I would vastly rather have a fully optioned out 335i (coupe plz) than a striped down 535 or 550. But that is more of a space question, as BMWs are largely similar. Plus I think the 5 is not that attractive.
With a Lexus vs. Toyota, it is easy to get many of the options on the lower car. However, if I was a discerning buyer, I would of course want to get the Lexus and let everyone know that I paid that much, not that I bought a 40k Highlander. This is the problem with most mid-range brands these days. People just can't settle for second best knowing that the best is so close. Car prices are so overlapping these days that it is near pointless to have 2 full range brands so close together unless they have distinct product portfolios, options and image that differentiates them. VW group does one of the best jobs at brand differentiation, I think, at least in the US. In Europe, well, they just sell a shit ton of cars.