LGT Owners, what car will you drive next?

[hadvw]

There are still a few manual SSes left on dealer lots...

 

And they're there precisely because the dealer wants MSRP+ (i.e. $50K) for them..

[dgoodhue]

What funny is the Cadillac ATS-V is what I rather have. My experience is that GM products are easier and cheaper to repair long term than the European brands. Cadillac wouldn't surprise me if its low on the reliability list. Lexus would be a maybe in my book but they are more expensive. (I don't compare CPO to new cars) ATS-V is a better value.

 

Have you ever sat in the back of an ATS? They are tiny. With the driver's seat adjusted for me to drive, I literally can't get in the back. My legs don't even fit between the seat bottom and the front seat.

 

I have not sat in the back of ATS. I am 6'2", so likely the back seat behind my seat would be render useless behind me. That is good to know. GM still doesn't make a MT AWD version of the ATS 2.0L Turbo which I would consider for GT replacement. I am still leaning very heavily on buying a WRX for a GT replacement anyways.

 

I actually do like the ATS-V on paper, but it would not be a replacement for my GT though, but a replacement for my Syclone. It's too fast for my daily driver needs and I do not want a rwd car for winter. I don't care about the back seat in my summer car. I am leaning towards a Z06 for my Syclone replacement, but the sleeper appeal of one of Cadillac V series is enticing.

[thefultonhow]

And they're there precisely because the dealer wants MSRP+ (i.e. $50K) for them..

 

Nah, many of the dealers are not willing to negotiate below internet price, but internet price is still generally below MSRP.

 

I have not sat in the back of ATS. I am 6'2", so likely the back seat behind my seat would be render useless behind me. That is good to know. GM still doesn't make a MT AWD version of the ATS 2.0L Turbo which I would consider for GT replacement. I am still leaning very heavily on buying a WRX for a GT replacement anyways.

 

Yeah, I'm 6'1". Even the CTS backseat was a little small for me with the driver's seat adjusted where I was comfortable... but would probably be fine for someone smaller. I'm not sure anyone would have fit behind me in the ATS, even a kid.

 

I thought the WRX would be a good replacement for my LGTs. After 2 years, though, I was tired of the flinty ride, road noise, and hard plastics all over the interior. At 31, I'm too old for that car.

[dgoodhue]

At 31, I'm too old for that car.

 

Too old at 31! I am 44 and I still feel young. My GT has a bunch poly suspension bushings which make my car a little on the stiff side. (I am planning on remove some more of them) The current WRX I feel is little less harsh than my car and it is no less plastic than my 5th Gen interior. I wouldn't be in the market for new car until the next generation SGP WRX anyways.

[Falcor]

We are on our 2nd Crosstrek lease (2014, 2016) and interior in my mind is nice. The WRX interior is basically the same, and for us it feels familiar. Only thing I don't like is the placement of the seat heater switches. Seems like it was an afterthought.

[thefultonhow]

We are on our 2nd Crosstrek lease (2014, 2016) and interior in my mind is nice.

 

You have problems. The interior is classic Subaru, i.e. huge expanses of hard black plastic with no sense of style. When we were test-driving smallish hatchbacks for my wife in 2013, the only interior that was worse was the Nissan Juke. Honda Fit, Kia Forte, Hyundai Veloster, Mazda3, even the Chevy Sonic were all better.

 

People don't buy Subarus for the interior or exterior styling. They buy them because they are cheapish, AWD, reliable, and hold their value. Subaru has only recently started treating their interiors like more than an afterthought.

[FLlegacy]

You have problems. [emoji38] The interior is classic Subaru, i.e. huge expanses of hard black plastic with no sense of style. When we were test-driving smallish hatchbacks for my wife in 2013, the only interior that was worse was the Nissan Juke. Honda Fit, Kia Forte, Hyundai Veloster, Mazda3, even the Chevy Sonic were all better.

 

People don't buy Subarus for the interior or exterior styling. They buy them because they are cheapish, AWD, reliable, and hold their value. Subaru has only recently started treating their interiors like more than an afterthought.

I would argue most people who buy Subarus are more interested in safety 1st. If you knew the demographics of the average Subaru buyer you would know how absurd your remark is.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ahkenaden]

People don't buy Subarus for the interior or exterior styling. They buy them because they are AWD, safe, and hold their value. Subaru has only recently started treating their interiors like more than an afterthought.

 

Fixed that for you:lol:

[thefultonhow]

I would argue most people who buy Subarus are more interested in safety 1st. If you knew the demographics of the average Subaru buyer you would know how absurd your remark is.

You're likely right, but you also totally missed the point of what I was saying. Safety still has nothing to do with interior styling.

[FLlegacy]

You're likely right, but you also totally missed the point of what I was saying. Safety still has nothing to do with interior styling.

 

I didn't miss the point, your points were just wrong...opinions on looks differ but the facts are the facts, most Subaru buyers can afford "nicer" cars but they still buy a Subaru.

[Falcor]

People don't buy Subarus for the interior or exterior styling. They buy them because they are cheapish, AWD, reliable, and hold their value. Subaru has only recently started treating their interiors like more than an afterthought.

 

This is very true. The Crosstrek is my wife's car and she thinks it is ugly and does not like hatchbacks, but she loves the car nonetheless. It's black and has Eyesight, so we call it Vader since it uses the force .

[thefultonhow]

I didn't miss the point, your points were just wrong...opinions on looks differ but the facts are the facts, most Subaru buyers can afford "nicer" cars but they still buy a Subaru.

 

Since you're pushing back on the fact that Subaru interiors suck (which, sorry, is not subjective -- their interiors are objectively inferior to most other brands at this point), I'll push back on your assertion that "most people who buy Subarus are more interested in safety 1st."

 

First of all, Eyesight, which is Subaru's flagship safety feature, is largely only available on top-of-the-line trim levels. Most people buy lower trims. Secondly, although Subarus have done decently in crash tests for a while, so have other cars, and Eyesight is a pretty new feature. Before Eyesight, nothing set Subarus apart from the crowd safety-wise.

 

Third, I can tell you from personal experience that outside of your weird Florida world (), most people buy Subarus for the AWD. My immediate family has owned eight Subarus over the past 30 years: four Legacys, an Impreza, a Forester, an Outback and a WRX. Five of them were purchased for the primary reason that they offered AWD and a manual transmission and none of the competitors in their price range offered the same thing. Three of them were purchased for performance reasons, which AWD a secondary bonus. Zero of them were purchased with non-traction safety being much of a factor at all. In fact, five of them were purchased at a time when there were objectively safer cars in the same price range that were nevertheless not considered due to other advantages of the Subaru.

 

I might add that none of them were purchased because the interiors were particularly good.

[dgoodhue]

Subaru eye sight is available on a premium level models across the brand except the WRX line.

[ahkenaden]

People don't buy Subarus for the interior or exterior styling. They buy them because they are cheapish, AWD, reliable, and hold their value.

 

I would argue most people who buy Subarus are more interested in safety 1st. If you knew the demographics of the average Subaru buyer you would know how absurd your remark is.

 

I didn't miss the point, your points were just wrong...opinions on looks differ but the facts are the facts, most Subaru buyers can afford "nicer" cars but they still buy a Subaru.

 

Honestly, after going back and reading this again, I think you guys aren't really "disagreeing" as much as you think you are. Subaru interiors were crap. Period. They sucked when you compare what you were getting for the money compared to other brands. (I mean, my tan interior on my GT gets stained by water...clean, clear, WATER.) They sacrificed interior "quality" for a long time to offset the costs of improving safety and AWD on everything. Fulton may not have included safety in his initial statement, but I think you just add that to the list. It's not mutually exclusive and part of the overall reason "non-turbo" buyers choose Subaru.

 

I know about Subaru demographics because of my wife having worked in Subaru sales for quite a while. FL's statement about their capability of affording nicer cars is definitely correct, but doesn't really negate Fulton's statement. Actually, it adds to it. The well-to-do non-Eurosnob yuppies that buy Subaru's brand new (no offense to any WTDNEY's here...good for you) by writing checks outright buy them because they are AWD, safe, and hold value. They don't care about interior or exterior styling too much (if at all...) and they perceive them as reliable. They don't want to drive a Camry because it's not AWD and everyone drives one, but they don't care enough to buy anything "flashy".

 

The people who don't buy the few performance Subaru's are a very niche group of people. Plain and simple.

[FLlegacy]

Subaru was topping safety ratings long before Eyesight and have been using high strength steel well before other manufacturers to protect the occupant compartment. To say they did nothing significant before Eyesight is just ignorant. We purchased our first Subaru a 2007 Legacy 2.5i precisely because it had a 5 star safety rating. When not many other cars did, the AWD i might add is awesome in the rain, which in case you didn't know is nearly an everyday occurrence in the summer which covers about 8 months of the year.

[thefultonhow]

Subaru was topping safety ratings long before Eyesight and have been using high strength steel well before other manufacturers to protect the occupant compartment. To say they did nothing significant before Eyesight is just ignorant.

 

And how many accidents are rollovers to take advantage of high strength steel in the pillars? Not many, especially in cars.

 

We purchased our first Subaru a 2007 Legacy 2.5i precisely because it had a 5 star safety rating. When not many other cars did,

 

Uh, actually, the 2007 Accord, Camry, and Altima all had 5-star ratings from NHTSA, and "Good" ratings from IIHS (the highest rating IIHS gives out).

 

the AWD i might add is awesome in the rain, which in case you didn't know is nearly an everyday occurrence in the summer which covers about 8 months of the year.

 

Aw, that's cute, you think AWD affects safety in the rain.

 

You're wrong for multiple reasons.

 

One, all cars have four-wheel brakes, two-wheel steering, and four-wheel tire tread. So, braking, and handling (except at the limit), are not affected by drive type. In fact, the quality of the tires on your car does waaaay more for wet-road safety. If you want a safe car in the rain, buy a cheaper one without AWD and replace your tires every time they get down to half-tread.

 

Two, rain does not provide much of a start-up traction challenge. That is the primary area where AWD shines. And nobody should be testing at-the-limit handling in the wet in any car, which means that, if you do need to handle at the limit to avoid an accident in the rain, you derive no advantage from the incrementally better handling AWD theoretically can provide at the limit.

 

Third, at this point, with stability control, even a RWD car is as safe as an AWD car in the rain, assuming good tires on both.

 

Fourth, Consumer Reports complained multiple times that the 05-09 Legacy had very poor at-the-limit handling, because it was prone to unpredictable snap oversteer. So you actually bought a car that was less safe for your driving environment than a Camry, Accord, or Altima, all of which had acceptable at-the-limit handling.

 

EDIT: one more thing. If you think, wrongly, that AWD makes your car safer in the rain, you're actually less safe, because you're overconfident. We see it all the time in areas that get snow: AWD cars off the side of the road when it's snowy or icy because their owners thought AWD made them handle and stop better. It's a known psychological pitfall that is not unique to driving. Greater perceived capability or safety makes you complacent and less risk averse.

Edited October 28, 2017 by thefultonhow

[FLlegacy]

And how many accidents are rollovers to take advantage of high strength steel in the pillars? Not many, especially in cars.

 

 

 

Uh, actually, the 2007 Accord, Camry, and Altima all had 5-star ratings from NHTSA, and "Good" ratings from IIHS (the highest rating IIHS gives out).

 

 

 

Aw, that's cute, you think AWD affects safety in the rain.

 

You're wrong for multiple reasons.

 

One, all cars have four-wheel brakes, two-wheel steering, and four-wheel tire tread. So, braking, and handling (except at the limit), are not affected by drive type. In fact, the quality of the tires on your car does waaaay more for wet-road safety. If you want a safe car in the rain, buy a cheaper one without AWD and replace your tires every time they get down to half-tread.

 

Two, rain does not provide much of a start-up traction challenge. That is the primary area where AWD shines. And nobody should be testing at-the-limit handling in the wet in any car, which means that, if you do need to handle at the limit to avoid an accident in the rain, you derive no advantage from the incrementally better handling AWD theoretically can provide at the limit.

 

Third, at this point, with stability control, even a RWD car is as safe as an AWD car in the rain, assuming good tires on both.

 

Fourth, Consumer Reports complained multiple times that the 05-09 Legacy had very poor at-the-limit handling, because it was prone to unpredictable snap oversteer. So you actually bought a car that was less safe for your driving environment than a Camry, Accord, or Altima, all of which had acceptable at-the-limit handling.

What's missing from that midsize sedan segment? Oh an accord, Camry, or altima...but look at the small suv and midsize suv...oh my Subarus everywhere they make a car.

 

I wonder how hard you have to work at pretending you know what you are talking about even with evidence to the contrary.

 

And the high strength steel in the passenger compartment is what keeps it from collapsing in on passengers from rear, front, and side impacts, not just rollovers which are rare in sedans but Subaru still passed that requirement before many other manufacturers.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Edited October 28, 2017 by FLlegacy

[thefultonhow]

What's missing from that midsize sedan segment? Oh an accord, Camry, or altima...but look at the small suv and midsize suv...oh my Subarus everywhere they make a car.

 

What are you even talking about right now? What does the Tribeca have anything to do with this conversation? Weren't you talking about how you bought the Legacy because it had better ratings than its competitors, except you were wrong because it didn't?

 

I wonder how hard you have to work at pretending you know what you are talking about even with evidence to the contrary.

 

Pot kettle [emoji38]

 

And the high strength steel in the passenger compartment is what keeps it from collapsing in on passengers from rear, front, and side impacts, not just rollovers which are rare in sedans but Subaru still passed that requirement before many other manufacturers.

 

So what you're saying is, Subaru used a technique to get the same ratings as other cars in their category.

 

K.

[FLlegacy]

What are you even talking about right now? What does the Tribeca have anything to do with this conversation? Weren't you talking about how you bought the Legacy because it had better ratings than its competitors, except you were wrong because it didn't?

 

 

 

Pot kettle [emoji38]

 

 

 

So what you're saying is, Subaru used a technique to get the same ratings as other cars in their category.

 

K.

Superior materials and engineering is a technique I suppose!

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List/2007

 

Looks like the IIHS forgot the Camry, altima, and accord on their list of top picks for 2007.

Edited October 28, 2017 by FLlegacy

[Falcor]

[thefultonhow]

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List/2007

 

Looks like the IIHS forgot the Camry, altima, and accord on their list of top picks for 2007.

 

Look carefully and see that the Legacy is only a "top pick" with stability control. For 2007, the only Legacys that had VDC were the Spec.B and automatics with nav. Did your Legacy have either? If not, it wasn't a "top pick" either.

 

[FLlegacy]

Look carefully and see that the Legacy is only a "top pick" with stability control. For 2007, the only Legacys that had VDC were the Spec.B and automatics with nav. Did your Legacy have either? If not, it wasn't a "top pick" either.

 

And where are the Camry, accord, and Altima you said were better rated than the legacy?

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[thefultonhow]

And where are the Camry, accord, and Altima you said were better rated than the legacy?

 

If you look up the actual ratings, they are almost identical (not "better" as you somehow think I said). The "top pick" rating was only given to cars that had stability control. Which you didn't have, right? So your car wasn't a "top pick" either.

[FLlegacy]

If you look up the actual ratings, they are almost identical (not "better" as you somehow think I said). The "top pick" rating was only given to cars that had stability control. Which you didn't have, right? So your car wasn't a "top pick" either.

I never said ours was a top pick, only that the legacy was. And the Honda was not 5 star rated all around. The Camry had a marginal rating for the head restraints.

 

So let me get this right, awd doesn't matter for safety because it only affects acceleration, according to you, but snap oversteer in at the limit handling matters. Somebody loves picking cherries...

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[thefultonhow]

I never said ours was a top pick, only that the legacy was.

 

So meaningless hair-splitting about a car you never owned. Got it.

 

And the Honda was not 5 star rated all around.

 

5-star rated in half the categories, 4-star rated in the other half. In the last year before a redesign. K.

 

The Camry had a marginal rating for the head restraints.

 

Head restraints!!!! Be still my heart!!!

 

More hair-splitting, of course. Your point is that Subaru was somehow vastly superior in safety to other contemporary cars. You're wrong. It wasn't.

 

So let me get this right, awd doesn't matter for safety because it only affects acceleration, according to you, but snap oversteer in at the limit handling matters. Somebody loves picking cherries...

 

Oh, how little about car handling you know.

 

Snap oversteer and AWD have little to do with each other. It is possible to get snap lift throttle oversteer in any car with a poorly sorted rear suspension. I got it several times, when I was younger and stupider, in my old Infiniti G20, which was FWD, but had a multilink front and strut rear suspension. The struts provided inferior camber control under lateral stress and thus the rear end was more likely to lose traction than the front in some cases. This happened to me both on the street and the track. One of the times resulted in a wicked spin and a scraped front bumper. I'm lucky nothing worse happened.

 

In a RWD, car, on the other hand, you're much more likely to get power oversteer, which can be easily controlled with the loud pedal. It's fun. You should try it sometime. I'm planning on trying it again tomorrow at an autocross, where it's expected to be pouring rain, so I'll be able to give you a firsthand account.

 

And AWD only affects acceleration in conditions where the power output by the engine overwhelms the traction available. In a 175-hp, 3300-lb car in the rain, that's unlikely to happen. Either way, it's near impossible that a little wheelspin on startup is going to be the difference between a safe trip and a catastrophe. But by all means, continue insisting that AWD makes you so much safer in Florida!