Rich writes:
I drive a 1999 Nissan Altima SE equipped with a manual transmission and ABS. The Altima has only 89K miles and is in excellent mechanical and cosmetic condition. I purchased it new and have followed a rigorous maintenance schedule. The car has excellent fuel economy, very good handling and braking and adequate acceleration. It is comfortable and has sufficient cargo capacity for me, my wife and infant son. I enjoy driving the Altima, and gladly would run it well over 100K miles, as I have done with each of my previous cars.
So what brings me into the market for another car? Newer autos have vastly improved passive safety features and crash test scores. While I place a premium on active safety, I cannot ignore the value of crashworthiness. Twice in the past few years, I have been hit by red light runners, barely evading serious injury. Most of my daily commute is on two lane secondary roads. Oncoming cars drift over the double yellow line and into my lane with alarming frequency. My Altima’s ability to turn on a dime will do little good when my choices are limited to slamming head-on into a minivan piloted by a cell-phone addled driver or wrapping myself around a telephone pole. Since it is impossible to upgrade my Altima’s crash safety, purchasing a car with modern safety features is the only alternative.
Here is my new versus used dilemma. For $12-15K I can purchase a used car that earned much better crash test scores than my Altima (4-5 starts versus 3.) It would be equipped with side airbags and latch systems, features that were not available in my price range ten years ago. The new versions of my favorite models cost about $20K, but they have somewhat better crash ratings and come equipped with stability control. Is the very latest safety technology worth the $5-8K premium of a new car over a lightly used one?To illustrate, Hertz is dumping its fleet of 2008 Mazda 6s for about $12K apiece. The NHTSA rates the ’08 at 5 stars in frontal and 4 stars in side collisions. A 2010 Mazda 6 retails for just over $20K, but has 5 star ratings all around and comes equipped with stability control. Another example is the Ford Fusion. Stability control is standard on the 2010, I have not seen it on the used ’08 models. It also should be noted that the newest generation of my target cars have marginally better fuel economy and acceleration.
Complicating this decision is the promise of improved technology in the 2011-12 models. Turbocharging, direct injection and clean diesel will make its way into new cars in my price range. Perhaps the best choice is to pick up a used model at the low end of my price (and desirability) range, and start saving for the pruchase of a brand new one in a couple of years.
So, do I shop for a used car, or cough up the extra dough for a new one? My list of models to check out is below. I would appreciate your perspective
2007-10 Mazda 6
2008-10 Fusion/Milan
2008-10 VW Jetta & Passat
2008-10 Legacy
2007-10 Malibu/Aura/G6
2006-09 500/Taurus
2006-08 Saab 9-3
2007-10 Camry
2008-10 Sonata/Optima
2010 Kizashi
2006-08 Volvo S60
Sajeev Mehta replies: The laws of physics are clear: the bigger the (late-model) car, the better the safety features work to save yo’ bacon. Forget about NHTSA/IIHS’ brick wall crash test, that levels the playing field. You have no such luxury when a Tahoe crosses the double yellow line. So the 2009 (buffalo-butt) Mazda 6 is safer than the fabulously fit outgoing model. Then there is active handling: great for a daily commute, fun sucking performance attributes aside. But it’s no replacement for high quality replacement tires, performance brake pads and a sorted suspension working at 100% efficiency. Tires are the most important safety feature on your car. Still.
New or Used? Since safety and long term value are crucial, new cars don’t make me giggle. The Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego is the go-to vehicle on that list. These Volvo-Ford twins are huge but efficient (highway gearing, anyone?), have unassailable safety ratings, depreciate like an Audi, excellent reliability, cheap to maintain and (unlike that pansy Taurus/Sable replacement) are well-versed in corner carving. Get one with leather for 8-10 grand, install new tires/pads/shocks and enjoy life on the American motorway. Because you’ll be the King Of The Road, for a modest cash outlay after selling the Altima on Craigslist.
Steve Lang replies: Sajeev is half right with his cup full of advice. Unfortunately I think your decision apparatus is just about bone dry and covered up with leeches. You’re using fear to make a decision and that’s always a stupid thing to do.
We have two kids, a nine year old and a six year old. My wife has access to two cars for our two kids. The first is the Barnacle Bitch, a 2002 Mercedes S500. The second is a 2003 Honda Civic hybrid. You know which one she always drives?
The Civic. A compact car (like the Altima) is a perfectly safe vehicle for 95+% of the car crashes that typically take place. You have a massive amount of steel that will have to be hit with the force of a thousand jackhammers before the crumple zone would approach your child (congrats by the way!) Glass you can’t avoid. But the only cars I’ve seen at the salvage auctions that have been smashed enough to intrude the middle of the car involved rollovers, telephone poles and Mack trucks.
If you’re really concerned about safety… invest. Use the best tires and brakes. Look at alternative routes that keep you away from the idiots out there if you must. But the real safety concern involves the cranial capacity between your two ears. Defensive driving is what has literally saved my bacon, eggs, and my beloved 1st gen Honda Insight a few times. If you learn to cruise, coast, and look further ahead when doing your driving, you’ll avoid a lot of the road dangers. Try to inflate your MPGs and deflate the fear factor that leads to a five figure divestment in the future.
As they say in the investment world, “past performance is no indication of future performance”.
Keep the Altima. It was “safe enough” in 1999. You could die just as easily in a “safer” car if you get hit by a bigger or faster object.
I’m with Steve Lang on his comments.
You can’t go wrong with any of the Fords on your list…& every subaru is built like a brick outhouse! Buy used…not new, a couple of years old, get a 1 owner with detailed service history, and save thousands on depreciation & still have factory warranty remaining.
Spend the savings on excellent tires (also a full winter set if your driving in the white stuff), brakes & a professional ‘car control school\'(best investment I have ever made) & take the family on a nice vacation! Enjoy.
If I were you, I’d keep your current car. Take (or simply observe) an MSF course. Put all distractions aside (leave the wife in back to attend to the kids). Turn your cellphone OFF. No food, no radio. The safest accident is the one you can avoid.
Tires, as Lang mentioned are important . . . what came on my Mazda6 were just shy of criminal for traction. MPG was good, they were quiet, but stopping distance was so-so and highway curves would lose anywhere from 1-6 inches laterally . . .not great.
Rich, I don’t think FEAR and CONCERN are the same thing — this was a primary concern with my latest 2 purchases (2009 Tribeca and 2009 Mazda6). People spend all sorts of money on trivial stuff (awful ‘upgrade’ oe stereos, german cars with no warranty and a car payment . . . same-size wheels that look different).
Unfortunately, you have to consider what’s out there. Does your back-roads portion of your commute have Navigators, Suburbans and G500s all over the place, or are these cars rather than SUVs that you’re seeing? When we traded in, I went from a CR-V to a 6 and she went from a Sedona to a Tribeca . . . a downsize in both directions, but still sizable vehicles.
New or used, go on new crash test ratings (or where everyone is aiming) for the comparison:
5 stars on the sides and front are available everywhere and no less than a 4 star rollover . . . You’re talking about cars (good!) so “bigger is better” actually DOES apply with regard to physics here . . . if we were talking SUVs or other already large vehicles, that’s something else.
Looking back, if the 2010 Legacy had been out, I’d have bought that. Finally big enough for adults to sit in the rear, good long term reliability and traction control that doesn’t need to be shut off except for when towing are very attractive features.
My mother has a 2008 Aura XR. It goes like the dickens, but the weight is a bit more than the same in it’s class, and unless they’re heavily discounted, you’ve got the resale and poor interior materials . . . it’s a shame since that was Saturn’s best chance at expanding before everything went to the crapper.
If you’re going for used, the american heavy class of sedans were leaders in crunchability – the Crown Victoria comes to mind, but may be a deal killer if it snows a lot where you are. Others are out there.
Physics teaches us heavier is better, not bigger is better.
Me too…you can do a lot to minimize your exposure to other drivers. The main way, of course, is to Pay Attention. For example, if a cop passes you on the freeway and you think, “Wow, I didn’t see him,” you weren’t paying enough attention. No cellphone, unless your commute has plenty of places where you can pull off to use it.
99 Altima is not a deathtrap and if you are going to get into an accident and die a horrible death in a 99 Altima your goose will be just as cooked in any of the cars you listed.
Instead of taking on debt in the pursuit of “peace of mind that only the insurance industry can talk you into buying”
Both you and the missus take a drivers ed course.
At the very least pay more attention when travelling through intersections
I have a co-worker that’s been rear-ended 3-times in 3 months in his prius . . . so I get some of the sentiment here.
Depending on where you live, the phenomenon of “you can’t control what the other guy does” is a major factor in how hurt you get. SW Connecticut is filled with 7-passenger vehicles with a distracted driver and everyone is in a hurry.
Consider the concept of lawyers: no one likes them, but if the other guy has one, you’re going to get hurt if you’re not prepared . . .
Safety is overrated, keep the Altima.
Steven and gslippy-
You didn’t answer the question. Rich has obviously made it his business to familiarize himself with the merits of passive vs. active safety, the importance of maintenance, etc., weighed his options, and decided that in his judgement, a newer car with better safety features is worth his time & money.
So, the false arguments that “any car is only as safe as the driver” and “the Altima is safe enough” are completely irrelevant.
Rich – I agree with Sajeev & Subifreak re: used Five Hundred or Legacy. I drove an ’06 Five Hundred SEL with the 6-speed auto and I was surprised how not-terrible it was to drive. Also, is there a reason the new Altima isn’t on your list? I hear the 3.5 SE is nice.
Sean,
I rented an Altima 2.5L SE for a week last summer. Great car, but I could not stand the CVT. It’s impossible to find one with the 6-sp manual. Otherwise I agree, they are great cars. Maybe the V-6/CVT combo is better than the 4-cyl? I know someone who has the V-6, I’ll ask him if I could take it for a drive.
Any midsized or fullsized sedan will be much safer than your 11 year old car.
oh yeah…to amswer your question….one family man to the next.
Ford 500Taurus, preferably 2wd and 6spd auto (avoid the early CVT ones)
500 is the better handler (and cheaper) and “controversial” front end.
Taurus is a little softer and has the redesign.
A lot of room for all the stuff and as the kid grows you will appreciate the space inside. Excellent family car.
Mazda6 – Excellent if you find a Wagon or hatchback. Early models can have oil consumption issues on the V6. Great car though (I have the wagon)
VWSAAB – er….no, nope dont.
Malibu/Aura/G6 – Nothing “wrong” with em. Just annoying dealing with typical GM issues (Replace rotors when you replace brake pads? SAY WHAT?!!!) Electric steering system can get wacky, interior bits not kid friendly (meaning little hand takes interior trim and takes it with them to house)
Camry – Gets the job done, there is a reason why so many people buy AHHHHHH LOOK OUT!!!! THE CAR WONT STOP!!! THE CAR WONT STOP!!!! LOOK OUT FOR THE WALLLL!!! ARRRRRGGGGHGHHHHH …………..thump
Sonata – Suprisingly competent car built with the occasional incompetent sensor that will be replace by incompetent people.
Kizahi – Is that even in showrooms yet? Looks interesting.
Volvo S60 – A Fussy mazda6fusion with a wierd engine and dealership 20 miles away. A bad buy
I’d go AWD/CVT and avoid the Aisin 6-spd. Lots more problems with early failures on them than with the CVT. Although if the CVT delevops issues, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
My 05 CVT Five Hundred with 50k hasn’t had any issues that weren’t cured with a reflash under warrantee.
The ‘Start’ crash ratings are worthless;
Use real world data;
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_intro.html
and even better
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf
Actually, these death and injury rates are a far better measurement of driver demographics than they are of inherent safety of vehicles.
Being a driver that uses accelaration as much as steering and brakes in my almost-daily incident avoidances, I could not possibly recommend the Ford 500 with the ultra-anemic 3 liter six. It could not get out of its own way, and could barely spin the tires on gravel.
Well let’s be honest here:
1) Half of these cars are going to screw you over with likely repair costs. The Passat? HA! The Saab? Are you kidding me? A bunch of used Mazda6’s Hertz is dumping off? Are you crazy? Question for you, what are you more concerned about, the possibility of getting involved in a deadly accident with your car or being stranded on the side of the road (and getting hit).
2) Why isn’t a newer Altima on your list (2007 up)?
3) The last-gen Legacy is a decent car, but its reliability record has not been good (unsurprising, it’s Subaru) .
I don’t know what you’re on about here, being as Subarus have been consistently among the top rated cars for reliability for many years, and the only Legacies that had any problems were the turbos. 99% of those problems were driver related, especially among the boy racer crowd who wouldn’t know a boost spike from their mother.
That said, the Altima is fine. Just keep the kid in a seat and they’ll be safer than you.
The ’08 Taurus was a favourite road trip rental of ours until Hertz started flushing them out of the fleet for newer ones. Now we spend Saturdays watching them roll through the auction with 30k or so for ten grand.
Apparently the CVT is rock solid as long as the dealership servicing it knows what they’re doing.
You have an infant son? OK, take a look at him. Now think about this: If a newer car is 20% safer – and, for instance, an ’06 Saab 9-3 will be SIGNIFICANTLY safer than a ’99 Altima; I’ve done the research on this – you’re essentially betting that any accident you’re in won’t straddle that 20% border.
The people here saying “Any accident is bad so it doesn’t matter” are full of sh*t – there’s a border between injured and not injured; a border between your baby crying and your baby bleeding.
Is the blood going to be worth the ten grand you saved if the accident you have is just over the edge of that border? Sorry to put it so bluntly, but those are the stakes. When you have a child, you have a responsibility to do the best you can for them – and that doesn’t mean, “Do the best except if it means annoying maintenance”, or, “Do the best except if it means substandard hard-touch plastic on the center console”. It means you get the safest car you can.
That also doesn’t mean you get the BIGGEST car you can, because while they’ll be safer in an impact with a given large object, they’re also far more likely to get into an impact in the first place.
If you want the safest thing on wheels for the money – and pretty much the safest thing in your list – get the 9-3, and put your baby in a center-mounted rear-facing car seat. Used Saabs, particularly now, are an insanely good deal, and as long as you don’t let yourself get blinded by the carsnobs who reside here, they’re damned nice cars. But as before: That’s not relevant. You have a child. That is your ONLY concern.
If something happens, you need to be able to look yourself in the mirror and not say, “I knew this car wasn’t quite as safe but I wanted something with better dashboard plastic”. It’s not worth it.
I would recommend looking at used Saab 9-5’s as well. Does just as well as the 9-3 on safety ratings, can be had for dirt cheap right now as well, and is generally more reliable than the 9-3 as well.
As I’m pursuing purchasing a used Saab 9-5 wagon right now, I checked out insurance prices for it against some other cars and found liability-only insurance to be dirt cheap for it, among the cheapest around. The 9-3 is also very cheap as well. Find a good example, get a Saab specialist to check it out before you take it home, and drive safe.
I actually ended up with a 9-5 Arc after going through this same process – though my decision was far more obvious coming from a 1995 Mercury Mystique, which is -indeed- a death trap.
The 9-5 can’t match the 9-3 in terms of raw safety – it’s (as TTAC reviewers will remind you with glee) an older design, and its biggest negative is its lack of rear curtain airbags.
However, rear curtain airbags lose a great deal of their importance if you’ve got a baby sitting in the middle. At that point, the additional mass and size of the 9-5 helps vs. the 9-3, too – and with certain larger rear-facing car seats you need the rear space anyway. Grandma’s 9-3 is a tight fit.
The price/performance ratio on 9-5s is absolutely absurd now. I got a very nearly flawless 2005 9-5 Arc, 58,000 miles, 2 years left on CPO warranty (honored whether or not Saab survives), with rain sensing wipers, H/K audio, memory seats, park sensors, etc etc etc, for nine grand.
The reliability issues for the 9-5 are pretty well ironed-out – a side benefit of that horrid platform age. The post-2003 cars don’t have engine sludging issues, and pre-2006 lack the GM parts-bin switchgear that TTAC seems to take such issue with (I prefer the Saab bits too, but I’m strange).
It’s also pretty speedy – and the Aero is quite speedy indeed. For the price, you could get a stripped-out Fusion, or a 2001 Camry with 75k, or a 2001 Volvo that’s built like a tank but can’t get out of its own way. The decision was fairly easy for me, and I absolutely love the car.
TTAC carsnobs need not apply, though. After all, if it’s not manual, diesel, and, ideally, a BMW, it’s worthless, right?
The problem with ‘look at your baby and decide if it’s worth saving $10k at the possible cost of his injury/life’ is that there is no end to this argument.
Surely if your child is worth the extra $10k to buy a safer car, you wouldn’t think twice of spending $15k for something even better. If $15k is ok, I’m sure you can stretch to $20k. Just what sort of callous parent are you that favours cash over your child’s life?. Etc etc.
The logical conclusion is every parent should strive to own a Mercedes S-Class with three airbags for every passenger. The automotive guilt trip is a car marketer’s wet dream.
Michael, that decision was relatively easy for me – I got the most car I could. There was a pretty well-defined line there. It probably helps that I don’t have a massive amount of extra disposable income, so it wasn’t an issue of trading off between spending another 3k on a car and going to Europe this summer.
Also, I’m not sure I could have done any better than the 9-5 I have – for my son – no matter how much money I spent. There are newer cars that have somewhat better structural stiffness and chassis intrusion protection, and that have more airbags, but from the perspective of my kid in the middle of the car, those things didn’t really have an effect.
In terms of accident avoidance, the 9-5 probably isn’t as good as the 9-3 Aero, or a 3-series BMW, but if you go far back enough to afford a 3-series (which I considered), you end up with something that has pretty crappy passive safety again.
Basically, I think I made the right decision. I don’t think I could possibly have done anything more without risking my entire financial security, home, and business. Taking out a car loan I couldn’t afford, having the car repossessed, and being forced to panic-buy a 1994 Ford Escort so I can get groceries would be a big safety negative.
The idea that you shouldn’t optimize car safety because you can’t ever have perfection is asinine – by your argument, I might as well stick with a busted-ass 1995 Mercury Mystique that probably takes 200 feet to stop from 60. It’s not either/or.
The fundamental point is that I prioritize based on my son, not based on me. That’s something which seems lost on a lot of people here – hopefully only on those who don’t have children.
Totally with Steve on this one. If you’re so bloody scared to be behind the wheel of your car, you have no business driving.
“Bigger is usually better, except in station wagons.”
I quote from the above IIHS papers. The explanation given is that older drivers often have large station wagons.
Obviously, the statistics are not clean if nearly-identical cars have widely different safety statistics.
Once again, we are being told that the new, that the expensive is better. But we aren’t being offered any convincing statistics.
How much longer will I live, statistically speaking, if I get a car with curtain airbags? Nobody can tell me.
In the aerospace industry, technological improvements are quantified. Deaths-per-million-miles on the one hand, and Dollars on the other. For cars: nonesuch.
I suspect, and I’m in agreement with Steven Lang, that 98% of safety is driving carefully, within the speed limits, with a sober mind on at least six hours of sleep. Most improvements in passive safety are cancelled by risk homeostasis, i.e. you drive less carefully when you feel like you’re in a panzer.
If money is no object, then why not drive an S-Class Mercedes? But if money is tight, then I’d say you’re better off in distancing yourself from the rat race, in relaxing, and in driving your fine Altima.
What if you get car jacked?
Make syure you get a gun and a gun rack…
What you drive into a lake?
Make sure you get scub gear and keep it at the read. Plus if you have the gun you can shoot out the window once you are geared up and ready to exit the car.
What if the infant isn’t really your kid….make sure you have a life insurance policy on the wife.
What if you have already grown attached to the kid?
Make sure your wifes scub tank isn’t filled with air.
SO
Make sure you get a car that has room for a gun rack and scuba gear IF YOU REALLY WANNA BE SAFE.
My 1988 Mercury Cougar had both :o
Jealous. My ’88 Cougar has neither.
I kid. The gunrack was in the trunk (a horrible place for quick access) and it was a pair of swim trunks.
The gun rack/accompanying firearms/swim trunks were, however, worth much more than the car was at the time.
As far as I’m concerned, any car manufactured and sold in the last 20 years or so is more than safe enough. All the new safety features being added to cars these days are just chasing after smaller and smaller percentage gains in safety. Keeping the car in good mechanical condition and paying attention while you drive is going help you avoid a vast majority of potential accidents to begin with and there isn’t a whole lot you’re going to do about the remainder.
And this is coming from a guy who is days away from being a dad for the first time.
You’ll find there’s a hell of a difference between days away and days after.
Even if you assume that there are only small percentage gains in cars now vs. 10 years ago – which is not true – every percent helps, and the macho penis-swinging by the “if you’re worried about safety, don’t drive” crowd here is both foolish and lamentable.
It’s one thing to make a decision about fun vs. safety for *yourself*. Choosing a car that’s less safe for your *children* because you think you’re a hardass is truly horrible.
Yawn…
This whole “won’t someone please think about the children” gets a bit old after a while. There is nothing lamentable, nor foolish, nor particularly “dick swinging” about not being afraid of the world. Nothing about life, including breathing, is without some degree of risk. There is nothing hard ass or particularly macho about recognizing this very harsh reality and still be able to get out of the bed in the morning.
No, nothing in life is without risk.
Do you wear a seat belt? Why bother – nothing in life is without risk, right?
Well, you bother because the risk/reward isn’t worth it. Wearing a seat belt isn’t enough of a pain in the ass to warrant the increased risk of not wearing it.
What’s the tradeoff with a safer car? Say it’s ten grand vs. a 10% greater risk of injuring your son. Maybe it’s 5%. Maybe it’s 20%. But if there’s an accident and my son gets hurt, I don’t want to look back and try to justify my quibbling, or figure out whether it was that last 5, 10, 20% that made the difference. It just isn’t worth it.
If something were to happen to my son, I wouldn’t feel like saving the ten grand was the right decision.
I guess it depends how much ten grand is worth to you. I defy you to look into his eyes, or have him come running up to you after a long day and jump into your arms and snuggle his head up against your shoulder – I defy you to experience that, and then say, “But jeez, it’s only 5% safer, and it’s so much money…”
How very emotive… and hysterical, like those Sylvania Silverstar headlight bulb ads (“Why would any red-blooded all-American man miss the football game to replace his headlights? Because it is easier to replace his headlights than it is to replace a daughter.” Complete and utter smarm.)
Life is all about risk; how much risk you are comfortable with and how you manage that risk. I’ve worn seat belts all my life, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get rid of my apparently unsafe ’03 Jetta when the kid arrives in the next week or so. I would also have no qualms, none, about putting the car seat in the back of my old ’68 Volkswagen, nor did I think twice about taking my young nephew for rides in it. Nothing irresponsible or foolish or anything of the sort. Just my level of acceptable risk is different than yours.
While I appreciate the active security comments, I have found over the years that some accidents are simply unavoidable – new tires or not. In such as case the only thing that will help you is metal and crumple zone. If you want safety then I would suggest a bigger vehicle that also raises the passengers as far from the impact zone as possible – like newer CUVs. They are zero fun to drive and use more gas but they do a very good job when metal meets metal.
If you’re commuting on secondary roads, you’re greatest danger is from you, yourself, running off the road, not by someone hitting you head on. If you’re going to get head on at speed, you’ll most likely be dead anyway, no matter what you drive. So get the car that’s going to keep you on the road and won’t roll if it goes off. You didn’t say what kind of winter conditions you have. For deep snow, ground clearance is more important than most people realize.
Last week we had ground drifting in southern Minnesota. People thought the roads were dry, but actually black ice was forming in the tracks, resulting in a large number of cars sliding off the road. The SUVs ended up on their tops; minivans slid off and stayed upright. Rollovers are 3% of accidents and 40% of deaths.
For two wheel drive, I’ve never had a vehicle with better winter traction than a short wheelbase Chrysler product minivan (and since I used to commute between northern Minnesota and North Dakota, I’ve done a lot of winter driving, all alone, on empty two lane roads in 40 below. My vehicle of choice? A minivan, of course.) For all wheel drive, you can’t go wrong with a Subaru.
Since your basic question is new or used I say used and let someone else take the hit on the first couple of years depreciation. As far as the vehicle itself I can’t vouch for it but I would tend to agree with other posters about the 500/Taurus or the Mercury variants as the prices seem particularly advantageous. The car itself should be low mileage one owner with documented maintenance and forget about the Hertz cars. I would definitely avoid Volvo and VW because of the high repair costs and in VW’s case their miserable reliability.
The Saab 9-3 is the safest car on your list. It may also be the most fun to drive. Reliability on the 9-3’s has improved, but it will not be as reliable as your Altima has been. That’s your trade-off. On the plus side, it will not have the “Japanese reliability” resale premium, meaning it’s a pretty good deal as a used car.
There are interior upgrades in MY-08 which are worth having – it’s quieter and nicer inside than previous model years.
It’s a question of priorities. If safety is #1, get the Saab (or a comparable Volvo).
As the VERY happy owner of an ’08 9-3 Wagon I certainly agree. It is a fantastic car. Very well sorted, and at the stupid-deep discounted prices you can’t go wrong. I paid $22.9K for mine brand new last year.
So safe as a house, good looking, and cheap – not a bad combination. One heck of a lot nicer to drive than an Altima too.
As the former owner of a ’00 9-5 wagon (which was also a great car, but not as great as the 9-3), anyone who thinks a 9-5 is more reliable than a 9-3 is nuts. There are FAR more “built-in dilemmas” in the 9-5 than in the 9-3. 9-3s got tarred with the unreliable brush due mostly to software glitches in the ’03s, but they got better and better and even the ’03s got sorted out under warranty. It’s amazing, peruse the various Saab forums and most of the whining about 9-3s is for stupid stuff like peeling buttons and rattles. mechanical issues are few and far between.
This question is a little silly, keep the Altima. The devil you know vs the devil you don’t.
BTW who do we send these questions to if we have a quandary for “New or Used?” Do we send them to Mehta?
Yes, me. We forgot to put my email in the blog, but in case anyone’s missed it:
mehtaATttac.com.
I do not work for Mazda or own any stock, I just had the same problem and this was my solution…
I have two daughters under 10, I understand the internal struggle with safety and security. Just last month traded in the 2000 Saturn lw2 for a mazda5. Nothing terribly wrong with the old wagon (140,000 miles) but I always felt the desire to surround the girls with airbags. Most parents have a different take on safety than the childless -I can understand your concerns.
Anyhow, I got the perfect family car…2010 Mazda5 Sport MT for under $17K new in CA. I would suggest you give them a look. A fun drive and a step in the right direction for sound sleeping nights. Stability and Traction Control are standard on the 2010 along with airbags all over.
The 2008 Taurus is the obvious choice. Extremely safe, roomy, comfortable all around, reliable, quiet, has great ergonomics and visibility all around, plus a HUGE trunk for all your needs. It’s basically the perfect used car for a family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phkOZuuSq0
While looks are subjective, I would say it’s the safest car on that list too. The 9-3? Might as well get another Epsilon car like the Pontiac G6. They’ll be worth about the same at the end.
I’s choose to keep the Altima. It’s the cheapest option by a long shot and those cars are not especially unsafe as far as I know.
If I remember correctly those older Altimas also had Nissan’s old 2.4L I4 which is tough as nails. A couple of years ago I bought an early 1990s 240SX with that same engine and despite having over 350,000 Kms on the clock and 15 years of badly neglected maintenance by the previous owner it just wouldn’t die. It wasn’t a sweet, free reving engine by any stretch but it had a pretty nice torque curve for everyday driving.
If you want to go for something newer and safe the Ford 500/Taurus is a pretty decent choice but avoid the old 3.0L Duratec, that engine is just too wheezy to move those cars with any authority.
Ummm
The Ford 500 is faster than his old Altima and CamryAccord 4 cylinder at the same price points.
0-60 should take anywhere from 7.5-8.5 seconds which is fine for a family car.
It has enough power to get the job done
Keep the Altima. I owned three, two first gen, and one like yours with the 5-speed. Engine is brilliant, the rest of the car solid. I actually prefer the first gen (visibility and spacious feeling), but yours has a more robust, if primitive rear suspension. Also a fold down rear seat.
Apart from select Accords and the Legacy, I won’t touch newer Japanese family sedans, TTAC is on the leading edge of the decontenting/quality reduction story. If you can stomach the cost of premium fuel, the previous gen Acura TSX is superior in all ways to your Altima. I almost bought one prior to purchasing an early second gen Fit with an mt. I bought the new Fit for the ACE body structure (safety), but in retrospect I should have bought the original Fit, which, once again, is a Far Superior product.
Again, your 2.4 engine was found in everything from the compact pickup, to the 240sx sports car, and its indestructible. Keep the Altima another 4 trouble-free years, or failing that be sure you can hand it off to someone you know who is in need of a superb vehicle.
Rich, shop for a used Malibu or Aura. They won car of the year awards for styling, handling, safety, FE, comfort. Check Karesh’s truedelta site for repair histories. I think you will pleased.
Full disclosure, GM employee.
I’m surprised at how many people seem to lack the understanding of “risk minimization”.
I think most of the “keep the altima” crowd are falling to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. The argument isn’t “this or that”; it’s how can I maximize my survivability.
The issue isn’t stopping the biggest object out there. Nothing can save you from a full-loaded Peterbuilt barreling down on you at 80MPH. However, the more you can tip the odds in your favor the more you reduce the level of injury for any given accident that isn’t this extreme.
It is not unreasonable to have a healthy fear of other drivers while still having a normal, productive, enjoyable life. Sure, you could get shot in your very safe car the day you buy it. Or you could get into an accident that would cause major injury in the altima but minor injury in a newer car.
If you were looking to buy an armored personnel carrier, I’d say you’re going too far and you need to look at your anxiety issues. However, since you’re only talking about mid- and full-sized sedans, I say go for it.
For some reason the 1999 altima isn’t listed in http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/DEathRatescombined1994to2004alpha.pdf
The other altimas all score in the 70s (average fatality compared to other cars).
http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/1MasterSCOREa.pdf shows any altima in the 2003 to 2006 range has poor test scores with the warning “CONCERN: low NHTSA or IIHS rating”
The 2007 and 2008 Mazda Six has a poor rating but the 2009 and 2010 are listed exceptionally well “Best 1% for 2003-2010 49”
The ford Fusion is all over the map. Some Fusions are excellent and some are horrible safety wise even within the same model year. I’d be concerned about getting the wrong one with that sort of mixed ratings.
The newest Legacy tested well and the 08 and 09 models are good as well.
The 2007 and older Taurus should be avoided but the 2008, 2009, and 2010 all tested well.
The Camry tested well so long as you go by crash data and ignore the recall scare. I can’t say it worrys me enough to avoid.
The Sonata tests very well.
The Optima tested poorly.
The Kizashi has insufficient data. Makes me feel better since I didn’t even recognize the name.
I don’t know half of these cars from personal experience. The tightwad in me says keep your current car if it is in good shape and put excellent tires and brakes on it like others have said.
The numbers hound in me says the Sonata with top shelf safety and warranty is the way to go if you want to waste the money on factory new. Just keep in mind that you’ll step up in safety and warranty and gain almost nothing in fuel economy over that 99 Altima.
And FWIW the 2004-2009 Prius all score in the mid 70s which is no safer than your Altima. I don’t know an easy way to sort the safety data by MPG so I don’t have a sweet spot recommendation on the combined ratings.
It does seem that side airbags are key for making it in the excellent category though ESC seems to be a factor for some cars that seems to be a design specific issue as other cars are safer even without ESC.
This chart is suspect – the Optima and the Sonata are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but below the sheet metal they are the same platform. As someone had pointed out before, the type of driver may be a significant factor here. The NHTSA test might not be ideal, but they do eliminate driver factor and compare just the vehicle’s performance.
I have a 2007 SAAB 9-5 Sportcombi and love it, but it wouldn’t be my first recommendation for a family car. The dealers are few and far between, the service can be a bit on the pricey side (same with Volvo). Will haul a ton of stuff though, and from ’07 on the 265hp turbo was standard.
I’d consider the Freestyle/Taurus X over the 500/Taurus, but I prefer a rear hatch.
As a general matter, there’s always a trade-off between vehicle mass and maneuverability. Of the various choices laid out here, I would go for the Taurus/500, maybe the “wagon” version (“Taurus X”) which was a marketplace failure and therefore is cheap as a used car. I think an SUV or CUV falls on the wrong side of the mass/maneuverability equation. One quick way to get some good information, is to call your insurance company and ask them their rates for your choice of vehicles, including personal injury protection. Vehicles that are cheap to insure, usually have a low loss experience (i.e. they are pretty safe). Admittedly, these rates also reflect the kind of people who (don’t) drive them as well, but the cost of insurance is a pretty good proxy for how safe the vehicle is, based on actual experience.
Stability control has saved my bacon twice. Get a car with it and side air bags and don’t look back. It’s a cruel world out there and you need the latest technology on your side so that if something were to happen, you know that you did the best you could.
You should get a VW Phaeton.
I considered that, but they were out of my budget and there weren’t any V12 models in the US. I figure that you ought to at least have the V12 if you’re going to be driving a land liner like that.
Plus, I wasn’t sure if one would fit in my carport.
For the win!
Might doesn’t always make right, but it doesn’t hurt to have it on your side. At 3,300 pounds and with decades (before it was designed) of safety development, the Volvo 240 remains a very safe car. That said– maintain brake quality isn’t a bad idea, nor would it be foolish to make sure that your ONLY CONTACT WITH THE ROAD isn’t some cheapass crap that will not serve you well. My opinions aside, this is a fact: A friend’s Chevrolet came, new, with B:C rated tires, I kid you not. Most of my rubber is A:A with just a smidge of A:B. In the winter, any of my cars on the road sit on four studded snows.
Back to opinion– I come back to a study that showed over a two year period in North America during the middle of the model run (1975-1993) zero fatalities in a 240. (That was fact) The opinion part is that these were, and remain, among the safest cars ever built. If I had the dosh, would I switch to new(ish) MB E320s, which are pretty darn close to the 240? Sure. But I am that-kind-of-dosh-free. So I make do with a fleet of 240s. Oh well.
Since it appears you drive < 10K miles a year, a new car does not make alot of sence. It will most likely become obsolete (to you) long before it is used up much like your Altima, meanwhile you have paid for the majority of the depreciation despite having alot of life left. Go used. I like the Fusion SEL myself.
I had a Volvo 240 and chose it for its safety back in 1982 because I had 2 young sons at the time. It was a used 1980 model. I kept it until 2003, when it had accumulated about 245K miles.
Those zero fatalities were for the driver only. And the sample size was on the smallish end.
I’d never recommend a 240 now. The newest ones are now 17 years old, they have only one airbag (for the driver), no side airbags, and no stability control. The world has moved on.
I really appreciate everyone’s responses to my question. Looks like you all are pretty evenly divided between “keep the Altima” and “buy a safer car.” I am reminded that there are no solutions to a problem, only tradeoffs. Your advice certainly will help me evaluate the tradeoffs.
I already have followed some of your suggestions. The original Firestone Affinity tires were complete junk. Their only good feature was poor treadwear. I replaced them with Bridgestone Potenzas, followed by Yokohama Advans. The after market tires transformed the ride and handling…no exaggeration. For winter I run Bridgestone Blizzaks ( I live in upstate NY.) I added Monroe Sensa-Tracs a few years ago and got a marginal improvement. My mechanic installed brake pads that he claims are an upgrade to stock. I don’t know what kind they are, but can’t complain about their stopping power.
If I spring for another car, the first thing I will do is replace the tires and upgrade the struts. This is why I prefer to buy used – there’s enough money left over to upgrade the junk that was installed at the factory.
Interestingly, most of the posts focused on the Altima vs. another car, rather than the new vs. used question. I take this to mean that the consensus is against buying new. Does anyone have an opinion about saving up to buy a new car in a couple years, when stuff that currently is in late phase development will be released into series production?
Rich
I’m not convinced that replacing your car will accomplish much; I’m looking at cars for my girlfriend right now and safety is a high priority for me as well. I’m going the other direction, though-I’m looking at buying another W126 or W124. Why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VojePSOrnYw
Closing speed was likely over 100mph; I doubt most new cars could pull that off, and I defy you to find anything else engineered and built when the 126 was that could, that’s not another Mercedes.
But to address your list more directly; avoid the VW and the Volvo. I was a service adviser for a German car repair shop for years (we did some work on Volvos as well). They’ll suck your wallet dry and then attack your beer money and your 401k.
Avoid the Toyota; it might not be likely to accelerate you into a telephone pole, but you could not possibly buy a more boring, unpleasant, generic vehicle. Unless you bought another Toyota.
Of that list, I’d go with the Legacy; they drive well, they’re comfortable, they’re reasonably quick in turbo form, they have no major reliability issues, and they have excellent safety ratings. You also get (sometimes questionable) AWD, which can, hypothetically, be useful in avoiding an accident, and respectable handling.
Also, take Sajeev and Steve’s advice; throw some decent tires on whatever you buy. OEM tires are almost universally crap. Bridgestone’s RE960 is a solid all season tire; I like Dunlop Direzza D1 Sport Star Specs for summer tires. A sticky tire is going to wear out sooner, but the extra grip you get (and the higher cornering speeds and shorter braking distances that come from it) may make the difference between avoiding the distracted soccer mom coming at you in her Suburban and running into her head-on.
My personal experience says thatI’ve got to go with Sajeev on this one. A couple of years ago a colleague of mine was killed in a car accident when a kid cranked out on meth crossed the center line and hit his minivan in a classic frontal offset collision. Both my friend and the kid were killed in the accident. When I went out to the wreck to retrieve a few items for the family I took some time and looked at how the van had deformed from the force of the collision. When I looked up his vehicle on the IIHS website I saw that the pattern was almost exactly what they observed through their testing procedure. They had given the van a “Poor” rating for exactly this type of collision. For me, I like to sleep at night the last thing I would buy the Ford. There are plenty of good used cars out there with great safety records, add the good tires and brakes plus knowing that you’ve prepped yourself on the best driving skills and it is one less thing to think about.
A friend of mine recently survived a very nasty head on crash with nothing but a stiff neck. A car wandered across the center line and hit head on. Both vehicles were doing 40-50mph. What got him off this lightly? A truck. A great big 2007 Chevy Silverado. Having seen a photo of the state of the Pontiac Sunfire, its made me understand why so many people think bigger is better. It may be worse for the person who runs into you but – thats their problem right?
I say hunt for used car deals. Buy the best you can afford. In this case get the safest car that you can easily afford to buy. Since your Altima isn’t broken I think you should hunt for deals. Choose a couple off of your list and since you have the time, just wait for a good buy. I would also say wait while Toyota’s problems air out they should bring down the prices of all cars. Off the list I like the Mazda 6, Subaru Legacy, and the Saab 9-3. I also prefer wagons/hatches/minvians for their cargo flexibility.
Why have you credited a copyrighted Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) photo to Automotive Holding Group (NSW) who are a private motor vehicle retailer/logistic company with no connection whatsoever to ANCAP?
Because that’s where I found the image. I’ll change the credit.
If you were that worried about safety ten years ago, you’d have bought a Grand Marquis.
If you’re that worried about safety now, you’d go buy a Grand Marquis.
See where I am going with this?
YES!
you’re trying to tell us that you’re 80+ years old, and need to be put into a carehome,
no????