Used luxury cars

mdaudioguy

My wife and I were thinking of buying a new Camry, thinking it might be a good time to get a deal. Then we hit on the idea of used. We've found a few luxury models that are loaded with options, with about 30K miles or so, and 3-4 years old. To get a Camry with all these options would be quite expensive, compared to these used cars. We're considering a 2007 Cadillac CTS. Anybody have any experience with these? How about the Lincoln MKZ?

mole'

+1 for a Cadi CTS

very nice car and way over a Camry

Knucklehead

All I can say is the Caddy CTS scored very low in Consumer reports latest issue.

messiah

The advantage to buying new is that you can order a car with exactly what you want, and the color you want

The disadvantage is that you pay out the **** for it because it depreciates so quickly.

IMO a good used car beats a brand new car 8 days a week. It's all about bang for the buck. For the money you would spend on a toyota, you could upgrade to their higher end lexus.

mole'

messiah wrote: »

The advantage to buying new is that you can order a car with exactly what you want, and the color you want

The disadvantage is that you pay out the **** for it because it depreciates so quickly.

IMO a good used car beats a brand new car 8 days a week. It's all about bang for the buck. For the money you would spend on a toyota, you could upgrade to their higher end lexus.

used IS 250/350

brettw22

I drove a CTS as a rental a few weeks ago and it wasn't that it was a bad vehicle, but it wasn't as nice as I would have thought.

The cars I've driven and been more happy with have been the Lincoln MKZ, and the Fusion (peppy, well designed, same amount of room as the CTS IMO), though they're the same cars.

I absolutely HATE the new center column console stack of the new Camry.

nooshinjohn

Jaguar XJ8/XJR... 2006 or 2007 can be had in the same price catagory and are phenomenal cars.

nguyendot

The 2008+ cts has been car of the year 2008, and Car and Driver top 10 3 years running.

It's completely different than anything 2007 and older. Rides much better, better interior, better engine, etc.

I've driven the old CTS, the newest CTS, and the STS all fully loaded... It's a good car. I personally wouldn't buy a CTS on the old body style, it isn't nearly the same.

A used G35s or G37 would be nice too... I have an 06 G35 sedan and a 09 CTS RWD 3.6DI, both fine cars and different in their own way.

angelsfann02

Luxury car owners also pay a premium for service and parts. Thats why I sold my beemer. Buying and maintaing a domestic vehicle is cheaper. Ford cars have come along way in performance and style i.m.o

mantis

messiah wrote: »

The advantage to buying new is that you can order a car with exactly what you want, and the color you want

The disadvantage is that you pay out the **** for it because it depreciates so quickly.

IMO a good used car beats a brand new car 8 days a week. It's all about bang for the buck. For the money you would spend on a toyota, you could upgrade to their higher end lexus.

I feel completely different. I do not buy shocks , tires , brakes windshield wipers , air filters , tune ups , belts , batteries ,hoses , water pumps , Alternators ,etc. I buy or lease a new car every so 3 to 4 years. I usually have about 25 to 30k on them and thats when you start needing some of the above listed items.

I get "new" exactly the way I want and it's "new'. My cars/trucks are always new and worry free. I also buy Nissan and have absolutely no service issues in the last 10 years.

It's all in the way you look at it. I don't visit repair shops but I pay my monthly car bill , a used car you pay a slightly less bill but have to maintain the used vehicle.

I'm also of the mind of that if you can't afford a new Luxury vehicle then you should buy it used and squeak into it. How are you going to afford the repair bills when something goes wrong? Most higher end vehicles cost more to fix.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I agree with Dan completely on this one.

If I were buying a new, non luxury car right now it would be a Tauus SHO, had one as a rental and is very nice IMO. The Camry is boring, and I doubt its better enough than the Ford, if better at all, to sacrifice looks and performance.

brettw22

I drove the new Taurus recently and what I really hated about it was that for as big as the thing is, the inside is too confining. The console is crazy around you, the b pillar is massive and makes the door opening oddly shaped.....

It was peppy, and it rode great, but some of the design aesthetic was off IMO.

Sherardp

CTS is not a bad vehicle. I've rented them a few times. Quick response and acceleration, nice comfort controls with a great sound system. I would give a 6 on a 1-10 scale. If you really want the goods of a luxury car at a good price I would recommend the STS model.

brettw22

Cadillac needs to redo their front ends. I don't like their high/low headlight arrangements and they need to de-age their aesthetic more IMO.

B Run

I own a 2008 CTS direct injection. It's a nice car and hands down better than the previous models. As long as you get one under warranty then everything is covered, and you get to drive brand new cadillacs if it goes into the shop. With this said, i've had the car 5 months and am selling it already. I had a bmw 545i that my wife totaled and I needed to get into something so I bought the CTS after a short test drive. Don't get me wrong it's a nice car but you can tell the quality difference between the two. I'm going back to BMW 650i for almost the same price. I much prefer the ride, engine, features and looks and it hasn't been the same since. Just trying to give you an honest opinion.

jephdood

Buy your cars a couple years old. You get the remainder of the warranty and don't eat the majority of the depreciation. Trade it in or sell it in 2-3 years before the coverage runs out and repeat.

edoggrc51

+1 on that Jeff. That's what we do.

Toolfan66

I have owned a Lexus for the last 8 years. It no longer has a warranty it has over a 180,000 miles. Total cost in repairs outside of the standard oil change and new tires? Just around $3000 Not bad IMO.

You can't beat a good Toyota or Lexus, they are dependable and you can run them till the wheels fall off.

My wife likes to lease, and I find it a complete waste of money. If you take your car in for it's 5 point check up they will last you a long time and it's cheaper in the end.

If you buy used, take the car in and have it fully checked out before you buy it.


Leasing = a payment that never ends.
Owning = seeing the light of day and having a few hundred dollars back in your pocket for awhile.

mdaudioguy

Ok, now I understand the price differences between 07 and 08 CTSs... It's more than just a year newer. It's a model-year jump. Just under $20K for an 07 and closer to 30K for an 08. So, the 07s are out of the picture now... Thanks guys!

I have no problem with the extra maintenance for a 2-4 year-old car (with relatively low miles). I do almost everything myself.

I'd LOVE a new Taurus SHO, but that's more expensive than a top-end Camry. My budget is in the range of the lowest-end Camrys. ($20K)

Jstas

An MKZ is a Ford Fusion in Lincoln drag. The Fusion is an award winner garnering at least one award in every year of it's production starting in 2006. They have one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any mid-sized sedan out there. The MKZ is essentially the same vehicle with a different look. You can pick up one used in the low 20K range. Get a certified used one if you look at one and ask for the CARFAX. Many of them are coming off of corporate leases right now. A corporate lease is a special kind of lease. Companies don't mess around with them. They are maintained to a T to protect the asset.

I just picked up a used MKX, 3 years old, 33000 miles or so. It was a corporate lease. Aside from a few small wear spots on the interior it's in picture perfect condition. I bought an extended warranty so if anything breaks, it's covered. The warranty runs out in another 4 years or 75,000 miles.


I gotta agree with brett. Some of the Caddys are not nearly as snazzy as you would think they would be. Then again, the Lincolns aren't really either. But Caddys have always been about flashy and gaudy opulence. Lately they have been going with the more subdued European style of luxury but still using flashy and gaudy trimming. Kinda doesn't fit. Makes them feel tacky. Driving dynamic and ride quality are pretty good although GM still has some work to do about thrashy drivetrains. The Lincolns, not so bad anymore. They don't do flashy opulence, they don't do the elegant European luxury. They remind me most of...hmmmm....executive class I guess. They are like a top rack business suit or a glass of 21 year old scotch. The same stuff everyone else has but a few notches above the rest in finish. It's like a Lincoln would be like Mad Men and a Caddy would be like Entourage if they were TV shows.

Lastly, I would not do anything mantis says. Leasing for a consumer, unless you are being reimbursed for your lease by your employer, is a bad move. You basically rent a car for 3 years or so. In the end you fork over more cash just to give the car back and have nothing in the end. You never stop paying for a car and you never really have anything that is YOURS. Your insurance is always high because you always have a brand new vehicle that is expensive to repair. Plus, you essentially pay the for the depreciation of the car which the dealer then turns around and sells for a serious profit to someone like me that pays 45% of sticker price for a car that is 3 years old. I get your leased car in immaculate condition, with the same warranty you had, sometimes longer, for a mere pittance in comparison while you rent a new car. Wear items do not go bad in 30-40K miles. If they are either your car is junk or you aren't maintaining it properly. But leasing is not a good idea. If you are going to use it to get a car that is normally outside of your price range then, well, you need to asses your priorities and reconsider your needs. Overspending on a car is not a good idea.

sucks2beme

Screw luxury cars. Go dependable. Most of them are just a regular
car with better trim. The core of the car is the exact same as the lower
end models. And the lower interest rates on new make buying used a lot less
of a good deal. Unless it's old enough to be a cash car, pass for me.
Note: I tend to drive them into the ground, so that colors my view.

nooshinjohn

There is so much wrong with this post I do not know where to begin...

Jstas wrote: »

Lastly, I would not do anything mantis says. Leasing for a consumer, unless you are being reimbursed for your lease by your employer, is a bad move. You basically rent a car for 3 years or so. In the end you fork over more cash just to give the car back and have nothing in the end. You never stop paying for a car and you never really have anything that is YOURS.

The reason you would lease a car is if you are the kind of driver that always gets a new car every three years or so. Leasing can drastically lower your payment(depending on residual values) and keep you under factory warranty for the time you own the car. Many luxury brands will take care of the maintenace on the car for the lease term as well, thus eliminating added costs for that term. If you plan on keeping a car for a long time, leasing is not for you.


...

Jstas wrote: »

Plus, you essentially pay the for the depreciation of the car which the dealer then turns around and sells for a serious profit to someone like me that pays 45% of sticker price for a car that is 3 years old. I get your leased car in immaculate condition, with the same warranty you had, sometimes longer, for a mere pittance in comparison while you rent a new car.

You do pay for the portion of the vehicle that you use, but to say that you can buy a car for 45% of it's new value at the end of the lease is fantasy when you are talking about the kinds of cars being discussed. The certification process and the warranty that comes with it is not free and will add to the cost of buying the car. The Subaru's that I am selling currently have a residual value at the end of a lease of 62% at 36 months. That means you only pay 38% of the cost of a new car for 3 years. The residual value at the end of the lease is what should concern you if you choose to go that route. The higher the residual, the lower the payment

...

Jstas wrote: »

Wear items do not go bad in 30-40K miles. If they are either your car is junk or you aren't maintaining it properly. But leasing is not a good idea. If you are going to use it to get a car that is normally outside of your price range then, well, you need to asses your priorities and reconsider your needs. Overspending on a car is not a good idea.

Brakes and rotors, tires, wiper blades, belts, hoses, and a myriad of other items can and do go bad in 40 thousand miles regardless of how well you maintain them. That is exactly why they are called wear items, and on some of these cars, they can be quite expensive. On the CTS for example, a decent set of tires can set you back a grand. I don't care how anal you are about tire care, they will be done by 40k. Many cars require new rotors when the brakes are done, which can result in brake jobs costing 700 bucks or more, as it did on my Jag recently. Again, unless there is a way to stop a car without friction, physics dictates these will wear out in 30-40 thousand miles...

nguyendot

Sherardp wrote: »

CTS is not a bad vehicle. I've rented them a few times. Quick response and acceleration, nice comfort controls with a great sound system. I would give a 6 on a 1-10 scale. If you really want the goods of a luxury car at a good price I would recommend the STS model.

I would NOT recommend the STS model. It's reliability is shotty at best. The ride is jarring on the top level model (with the uber expensive magnetic ride control). The navigation is ****-backwards. It costs $3000 and is 10 times harder and more frustrating to use than a $60 Garmin. You can't make the display play movies without a "lockpick" while the car is in motion (yes, I know).

The weight balance is way off as well, with 60+ percent of the weight forward, and the car is rear wheel drive. You can end up spinning the car easily if you are not careful, even with the traction control and stability control on. I left work a few times and only at 1/4 throttle I would turn out and the car would spin a complete 180 to 360 in the middle of the intersection - and I have no idea why. That's with new grippy tires even, you could feel the weight shift almost like a motorcycle coming up only on its front wheel and it's rear spinning around. The seats leave something to be desired, this car is not made for long trips like the STS of ole. Given it handles better than the old STS, it still cannot keep up with it's main competition - the BMW 5 series, and the Audi A6 series.

It's fully of toys, which are so easily broken. I bought a FULLY loaded 2006 STS (same as current year model except for one-piece rear bumper and side sills) and it was the biggest piece I ever owned. For $59,975 I expected MUCH more. In the 30 months I owned it, it accrued 85 pages of service logs from the dealer from having it in the shop every other week.

I had this done to it:

PCM (powertrain control module) replaced 3x because car would stall or not start.
Navigation system replaced 3x because audio would not start on car startup
Both HID headlights replaced 1x because they fogged over and did not clear for over a month.
Spoiler replaced because it unbolted and fell off randomly.
Bolt from Spoiler fished out of trunk lid because it fell off in the lid - 6X (yeah, it took 6 times, and they still didn't fix it, so I gave up)
Passenger front door repainted as it looked like acid was eating it away (first week of ownership)
Windshield replaced - it was delaminating.
I can't even remember what else was done, but for an almost $60k car, that's ridiculous.

Funny, my CTS which only has the Direct inject engine and sport handling package (HID bixenon) hasn't had near the problems...not even close.

Now, I will say, with the STS sales lackluster, the fact that this year is the last model year, and it's gigantic depreciation, the STS can be had for extremely cheap now while still under warranty. You can get a 2008 model that was originally $55k for $20k easily. Just know what you're getting. My dad sold them for six years, and I was a "proud" owner because of it, but I'm glad I moved on from that model, it just plain sucked. It was fast though

strider

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There is so much wrong with this post I do not know where to begin...

....says the guy who recommends Jaguars with every breath.:rolleyes:

Belts and hoses at 40k? C'mon, you sound like a car salesman trying to close a deal on a car with maintenance rolled into the monthly payment.

Brakes aren't too big of a deal if you're doing the work yourself. Tires are fun to buy, not to mention the fact that I've never heard of a lease agreement that covers wear items.

IME, GM products with a bunch of bells and whistles turn into expensive repairs at some point. Toyota will last forever but tend to be not too exciting. If it were me looking at a used luxury vehicle I'd go certified Lexus. I'd defer to Jstas' experience in regard to Lincoln; I've always felt Ford was the best of the domestics so it would stand to reason Lincoln would be right there.

nguyendot

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There is so much wrong with this post I do not know where to begin...


The reason you would lease a car is if you are the kind of driver that always gets a new car every three years or so. Leasing can drastically lower your payment(depending on residual values) and keep you under factory warranty for the time you own the car. Many luxury brands will take care of the maintenace on the car for the lease term as well, thus eliminating added costs for that term. If you plan on keeping a car for a long time, leasing is not for you.


...

You do pay for the portion of the vehicle that you use, but to say that you can buy a car for 45% of it's new value at the end of the lease is fantasy when you are talking about the kinds of cars being discussed. The certification process and the warranty that comes with it is not free and will add to the cost of buying the car. The Subaru's that I am selling currently have a residual value at the end of a lease of 62% at 36 months. That means you only pay 38% of the cost of a new car for 3 years. The residual value at the end of the lease is what should concern you if you choose to go that route. The higher the residual, the lower the payment

...

Brakes and rotors, tires, wiper blades, belts, hoses, and a myriad of other items can and do go bad in 40 thousand miles regardless of how well you maintain them. That is exactly why they are called wear items, and on some of these cars, they can be quite expensive. On the CTS for example, a decent set of tires can set you back a grand. I don't care how anal you are about tire care, they will be done by 40k. Many cars require new rotors when the brakes are done, which can result in brake jobs costing 700 bucks or more, as it did on my Jag recently. Again, unless there is a way to stop a car without friction, physics dictates these will wear out in 30-40 thousand miles...

Any stock tires will set you back $1k or more. The problem is, most stock tires suck unless you go super high end, but in that case you still have to get snow tires because the top level tires are generally sport, summer only.
My CTS has MXM4s on it from Michelin. They're $400 each from the dealer.... sucks but that's the way it is. I'll be replacing them with stickier Kumhos, same quality for only $600 for the set. So not quite 1k. But yeah it's a cost. And if you're buying a used car though, if you go to a reputable dealer they will have replaced those tires first anyways. My dads dealer replaced the 10k tires on my STS with brand new tires before reselling it. 10k! They had barely broken in!

nooshinjohn

strider wrote: »

....says the guy who recommends Jaguars with every breath.:rolleyes:

Belts and hoses at 40k? C'mon, you sound like a car salesman trying to close a deal on a car with maintenance rolled into the monthly payment.

Brakes aren't too big of a deal if you're doing the work yourself. Tires are fun to buy, not to mention the fact that I've never heard of a lease agreement that covers wear items.

IME, GM products with a bunch of bells and whistles turn into expensive repairs at some point. Toyota will last forever but tend to be not too exciting. If it were me looking at a used luxury vehicle I'd go certified Lexus. I'd defer to Jstas' experience in regard to Lincoln; I've always felt Ford was the best of the domestics so it would stand to reason Lincoln would be right there.

Belts and hoses can be affected by climate, so that would entirely depend on those factors. Having been in service, I have seen hoses split at 42k and belts shred earlier than that in a Southern California summer. As far as Jag goes, they have been great cars for me, and I have not had too much trouble from any of them.

As far as what is covered by the lease with regards to normal wear and tear... it varies by manufacturer. I know that most will allow up to a grand in combined W&T(dings/stains/tires) before they look to you for re-imbursement. The key word is "normal". They expect there to be signs of use like worn tires and such. It is when things get into the "abnormal" range that they start adding things up. What is abnormal is set by the manufacturer and should also be discussed before signing a lease.

sm88

I drive a 90's Grand Prix with 208k miles on it that I paid $200 for years ago and it has no problems whatsoever. I'd never buy new, 3-4 years old is perfect, but for me a car is transportation and I save the luxury for home, nothing quite like a cash car and no payments. Love the CTS, and would want one, but i'm personally going to wait until the 08's are a bit older. They will still be expensive in a few years but less so (I hope).

potee

My 07 buick Lucerne is a twin to the caddy without the extra dollars. Drove both no differance. Save money check them out.

nguyendot

potee wrote: »

My 07 buick Lucerne is a twin to the caddy without the extra dollars. Drove both no differance. Save money check them out.

Which Caddy? If you mean the DTS then yes, it is pretty much twins with that. But that's a FWD land yacht that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's not the same...not even close.

TroyD

If you like/gotta have the new car smell every 2-3 years, hey, knock yourself out....it's your money, spend it how you wish. However, to believe that it is more economical is a pantload. HUGE pantload.

Figger, the avg car payment is, what, 4 bills? Insurance on top of that? Ok, now, lets say you pay off your car....there is no one, and I mean NO ONE that is spending 5K a year on repairs....and I haven't even gotten on insurance....

This, 'I'm saving money by leasing' is one of these fairy tales that you buy into because it eases your mind about the shellacking that you are taking every couple of years.

BDT

jflail2

I think the buy versus buy new versus lease is different for each person.

My ex-GF bought herself a little brand new Nissan a few months ago. Perfect for her, as she needs something new and reliable since I'm not there to take care of her anymore.

I have a friend that trades in cars at most every 2 years. Is he losing money? Probably so. Cars aren't utilitarian for him; he truly enjoys constantly having a new car. More power to him, and he sounds to me to be the perfect candidate for leasing instead of buying.

I am going to buy used luxury the next car I get. I bought my Audi new, and haven't regretted it, but I could have afforded a nicer version (like an RS-4) if I had bought one 2-3 years old...

To lump everyone into 1 category is like saying everyone should use 2 channel set ups only...just b/c it's the best choice for you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else...