Worst New Cars For Your Money

Buena Fortuna · 03-05-2009, 05:44 AM

No carmaker is perfect. Each has best and worst sellers, hits and misses. And while plenty of cars are generally good values, there are a few that don't make as much sense when you work out the calculations over time. That's where our new list comes in: the Worst Cars for the Money.

The Worst Cars for the Money were identified using data from the U.S. News car rankings, which are based on the collective opinion of the automotive press. This tells us how "good" or "bad" a car is within its class, according to a large number of critics. We then weigh the rankings against how much value the car packs in compared to others within its class. Using data from IntelliChoice, an industry leader in determining ownership costs, we include how much buyers can expect to spend up front, how much they'll spend on maintenance and fuel, and how much of a hit they'll take from the car's depreciation during the first five years.

The result is a list of cars you may want to think twice about before buying. But also keep in mind the unwritten part of a car's value: if you really like one of these models, then chances are you'll be happy driving it no matter what - which means that in the end, it could be the best car for your money.

Compact Car: Pontiac G5
The G5 trails the majority of compact cars when it comes to comfort, quality and performance, leading to a poor U.S. News ranking. Its sticker price is also a bit higher than many competitors, and it's expected to depreciate as much as 60 percent within the first five years of ownership - twice as fast as its top-ranked competitors. In addition, five years of fueling and maintaining the G5 is estimated to cost you $5,000 to $10,000 more than Honda's Fit or Civic. The G5's future is unclear since GM has announced plans to shrink the Pontiac model line significantly. Pontiac sold just 767 G5s nationwide in January.

Better values: If you're in the market for a compact car, consider the Honda Fit and Hyundai Elantra.

Compact Crossover: Suzuki XL7
Some critics note that while it's a competent people hauler, the Suzuki XL7 can't match the acceleration, handling and interior quality of top rivals. Its five-year cost of ownership is quite high - almost $47,000 as compared to the Honda CR-V, which is about $37,000. Depreciation is the major cause - like the Pontiac G5, the XL7 is expected to lose more than 60 percent of its value over five years. We should note that while the XL7 may have some shortcomings, this SUV has stellar crash test ratings and should be on the list for small SUV shoppers concerned about safety.

Better values: If you're in the market for a compact crossover, you may do better with the Mazda Mazda5 or the Ford Escape Hybrid.

Full-Size SUV: Jeep Commander
The Jeep Commander is a good choice for off-road enthusiasts, but buyers who spend the majority of their time on the pavement should look elsewhere. U.S. News ranks the Commander last among large SUVs. Its cost of ownership over five-years is $10,000 more than the Mazda CX-9 crossover and even higher than the popular Chevrolet Tahoe, another off-road-ready vehicle. While the Commander's sub-$30K sticker may look appealing, this big SUV is expected to depreciate 50 to 60 percent over five years. Sales were down 56 percent last year, and there's speculation that it may be discontinued after 2009.

Better values: If you're in the market for a full-size SUV, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Mazda CX-9 are worth a look.

Full Size Pickup: Nissan Titan

2009 Nissan Titan
With rugged practicality and a strong powertrain, the 2009 Nissan Titan isn't out of place in the full-size truck market. However, after more than three years on the market, the Titan still hasn't pulled in a lot of American buyers. Sales were down almost 50 percent in 2008. That may be because the Titan's value equation just doesn't make sense. It's generally well liked, but it costs up to $5,000 more than solid American options. The Titan also lags the competition in fuel economy, with only 13 miles per gallon in the city for the base model. Nissan has announced it will end production of the Titan in 2010 and is planning to replace it with a pickup based on the Dodge Ram.

Better values: Consider the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado.

Upscale Car: Volvo S60
The Volvo S60 is based on a nine-year-old design and has been left in the dust by continually improved competitors like the Infiniti G37 and BMW 3-Series. On the plus side, the S60 could save you two or three thousand dollars over five years, compared to the 3-Series or the Cadillac CTS. But consider that the existing S60's deprecation will likely only get worse: Volvo debuted a new concept at this year's Detroit Auto Show that will make the current S60 extinct.

Better values: If you're in the market for an upscale car, consider the Infiniti G37 or Lexus ES.

Sports Car: Mitsubishi Eclipse
The Mitsubishi Eclipse offers aggressive sports car styling, but critics claim it lacks the power and agility they expect in a sports car. This contributes to an underwhelming performance in the U.S. News rankings. The Eclipse isn't such a bad deal if you just want to look the part of a speed racer - there are just other sports cars that are better. The Eclipse's sticker price undercuts most of its rivals. The car will run you about $40k + to own over five years - about $5,000 less than the Honda S2000. The Eclipse's sales numbers confirm that it has loyal buyers. Sure, sales are down about 38 percent from a year ago, but the Eclipse still sold better than the S2000 or Mazda Miata. The Eclipse just received a refresh for 2009, which means it probably won't be going anywhere soon.

Better values: Still, for cars that perform better within the mainstream sports car class, take a look at the Mazda MX-5 Miata and Nissan 370Z.

motortown · 03-05-2009, 06:05 AM

Thanks for posting that, Sam. I'm a little suprised that none of Audi or Land Rover's vehicles made the list. I'm not hatin', as I've always liked these two manufacturers, but I've had too many friends with way too many service issues (and not minor ones, either) on new or newer models.

mosesbotbol · 03-05-2009, 06:08 AM

Man, those are all the models my girlfriend is looking to buy :-(

03-05-2009, 06:10 AM

tell her to check out the mazda 3, or a the scion tc for a sporty car.

Buena Fortuna · 03-05-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motortown

Thanks for posting that, Sam. I'm a little suprised that none of Audi or Land Rover's vehicles made the list. I'm not hatin', as I've always liked these two manufacturers, but I've had too many friends with way too many service issues (and not minor ones, either) on new or newer models.

I agree. I know the Land Rovers have been plagued with problems since Ford took them over. And Audi/VW have always been cars that have had service issues.

pearson · 03-05-2009, 08:02 PM

Oh that sucks, what they did not mention is that the volvo S60 is being replaced by the new XC60, that are being delivered this week to dealers. Landrover and Volvo are using a new T6 engine that is a piece of ****.

This pic shows the back of the engine, notice that the belts are over the transmission and the alt (you cant see it) is under the intake. they chose this design because it is only 3mm longer then their 5 cyl engines. But they are a Bear to work on and even service. The s60 uses the 5 cyl and the new xc60 uses the T6.

Just thought I would add what I know.

Sorry Bao

JE3146 · 03-05-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theycallmedan'lboone

tell her to check out the mazda 3, or a the scion tc for a sporty car.

Was just gonna say... on the BEST value for the buck list. Those two take top spots

floydpink · 03-05-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pearson

Oh that sucks, what they did not mention is that the volvo S60 is being replaced by the new XC60, that are being delivered this week to dealers. Landrover and Volvo are using a new T6 engine that is a piece of ****.

This pic shows the back of the engine, notice that the belts are over the transmission and the alt (you cant see it) is under the intake. they chose this design because it is only 3mm longer then their 5 cyl engines. But they are a Bear to work on and even service. The s60 uses the 5 cyl and the new xc60 uses the T6.

Just thought I would add what I know.

Sorry Bao

Two reasons I would never own that mess of an engine. If I can't work on it, I don't want it.

Buena Fortuna · 03-06-2009, 05:16 AM

My son has a 2000 Grand Prix that requires the engine to be pulled just to change the spark plugs...$300 just in labor alone! And they wonder why they can't sell a car here in the Motor City...

motortown · 03-06-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buena Fortuna

... And they wonder why they can't sell a car here in the Motor City...

With the domestic auto manufacturers and suppiliers in shambles, and the D being the epicenter, I actually considered a different username when I found you guys (after being away from the "other" board for a couple of months). While we may be getting leaner to survive, and meaner by nature, we'll always be the Motor City!!!

Buena Fortuna · 03-06-2009, 07:49 AM

While we may be getting leaner to survive, and meaner by nature, we'll always be the Motor City!!!

[/quote]

AMEN BROTHER!

03-05-2009, 05:44 AM	#1
Buena Fortuna Feeling at Home Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: Sam Location: SE Michigan Posts: 637 Trading: (18)	Worst New Cars For Your Money No carmaker is perfect. Each has best and worst sellers, hits and misses. And while plenty of cars are generally good values, there are a few that don't make as much sense when you work out the calculations over time. That's where our new list comes in: the Worst Cars for the Money. The Worst Cars for the Money were identified using data from the U.S. News car rankings, which are based on the collective opinion of the automotive press. This tells us how "good" or "bad" a car is within its class, according to a large number of critics. We then weigh the rankings against how much value the car packs in compared to others within its class. Using data from IntelliChoice, an industry leader in determining ownership costs, we include how much buyers can expect to spend up front, how much they'll spend on maintenance and fuel, and how much of a hit they'll take from the car's depreciation during the first five years. The result is a list of cars you may want to think twice about before buying. But also keep in mind the unwritten part of a car's value: if you really like one of these models, then chances are you'll be happy driving it no matter what - which means that in the end, it could be the best car for your money. Compact Car: Pontiac G5 The G5 trails the majority of compact cars when it comes to comfort, quality and performance, leading to a poor U.S. News ranking. Its sticker price is also a bit higher than many competitors, and it's expected to depreciate as much as 60 percent within the first five years of ownership - twice as fast as its top-ranked competitors. In addition, five years of fueling and maintaining the G5 is estimated to cost you $5,000 to $10,000 more than Honda's Fit or Civic. The G5's future is unclear since GM has announced plans to shrink the Pontiac model line significantly. Pontiac sold just 767 G5s nationwide in January. Better values: If you're in the market for a compact car, consider the Honda Fit and Hyundai Elantra. Compact Crossover: Suzuki XL7 Some critics note that while it's a competent people hauler, the Suzuki XL7 can't match the acceleration, handling and interior quality of top rivals. Its five-year cost of ownership is quite high - almost $47,000 as compared to the Honda CR-V, which is about $37,000. Depreciation is the major cause - like the Pontiac G5, the XL7 is expected to lose more than 60 percent of its value over five years. We should note that while the XL7 may have some shortcomings, this SUV has stellar crash test ratings and should be on the list for small SUV shoppers concerned about safety. Better values: If you're in the market for a compact crossover, you may do better with the Mazda Mazda5 or the Ford Escape Hybrid. Full-Size SUV: Jeep Commander The Jeep Commander is a good choice for off-road enthusiasts, but buyers who spend the majority of their time on the pavement should look elsewhere. U.S. News ranks the Commander last among large SUVs. Its cost of ownership over five-years is $10,000 more than the Mazda CX-9 crossover and even higher than the popular Chevrolet Tahoe, another off-road-ready vehicle. While the Commander's sub-$30K sticker may look appealing, this big SUV is expected to depreciate 50 to 60 percent over five years. Sales were down 56 percent last year, and there's speculation that it may be discontinued after 2009. Better values: If you're in the market for a full-size SUV, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Mazda CX-9 are worth a look. Full Size Pickup: Nissan Titan 2009 Nissan Titan With rugged practicality and a strong powertrain, the 2009 Nissan Titan isn't out of place in the full-size truck market. However, after more than three years on the market, the Titan still hasn't pulled in a lot of American buyers. Sales were down almost 50 percent in 2008. That may be because the Titan's value equation just doesn't make sense. It's generally well liked, but it costs up to $5,000 more than solid American options. The Titan also lags the competition in fuel economy, with only 13 miles per gallon in the city for the base model. Nissan has announced it will end production of the Titan in 2010 and is planning to replace it with a pickup based on the Dodge Ram. Better values: Consider the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado. Upscale Car: Volvo S60 The Volvo S60 is based on a nine-year-old design and has been left in the dust by continually improved competitors like the Infiniti G37 and BMW 3-Series. On the plus side, the S60 could save you two or three thousand dollars over five years, compared to the 3-Series or the Cadillac CTS. But consider that the existing S60's deprecation will likely only get worse: Volvo debuted a new concept at this year's Detroit Auto Show that will make the current S60 extinct. Better values: If you're in the market for an upscale car, consider the Infiniti G37 or Lexus ES. Sports Car: Mitsubishi Eclipse The Mitsubishi Eclipse offers aggressive sports car styling, but critics claim it lacks the power and agility they expect in a sports car. This contributes to an underwhelming performance in the U.S. News rankings. The Eclipse isn't such a bad deal if you just want to look the part of a speed racer - there are just other sports cars that are better. The Eclipse's sticker price undercuts most of its rivals. The car will run you about $40k + to own over five years - about $5,000 less than the Honda S2000. The Eclipse's sales numbers confirm that it has loyal buyers. Sure, sales are down about 38 percent from a year ago, but the Eclipse still sold better than the S2000 or Mazda Miata. The Eclipse just received a refresh for 2009, which means it probably won't be going anywhere soon. Better values: Still, for cars that perform better within the mainstream sports car class, take a look at the Mazda MX-5 Miata and Nissan 370Z. __________________ Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

03-05-2009, 06:05 AM	#2
motortown Just in from the Storm Join Date: Feb 2009 First Name: John Location: the 'burbs Posts: 38 Trading: (0)	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money Thanks for posting that, Sam. I'm a little suprised that none of Audi or Land Rover's vehicles made the list. I'm not hatin', as I've always liked these two manufacturers, but I've had too many friends with *way* too many service issues (and not minor ones, either) on new or newer models.

03-05-2009, 06:08 AM	#3
mosesbotbol That's a Corgi Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: Moses Location: Boston Posts: 6,171 Trading: (6)	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money Man, those are all the models my girlfriend is looking to buy :-( __________________ Port Wine & Claret \| British Cars \| Welsh Corgi's

03-05-2009, 06:10 AM	#4
theycallmedan'lboone Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money tell her to check out the mazda 3, or a the scion tc for a sporty car.

03-05-2009, 08:02 PM	#6
pearson Still Watching My Back Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: John Location: North Pole AK Posts: 116 Trading: (5)	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money Oh that sucks, what they did not mention is that the volvo S60 is being replaced by the new XC60, that are being delivered this week to dealers. Landrover and Volvo are using a new T6 engine that is a piece of ****. This pic shows the back of the engine, notice that the belts are over the transmission and the alt (you cant see it) is under the intake. they chose this design because it is only 3mm longer then their 5 cyl engines. But they are a Bear to work on and even service. The s60 uses the 5 cyl and the new xc60 uses the T6. Just thought I would add what I know. Sorry Bao

03-06-2009, 05:16 AM	#9
Buena Fortuna Feeling at Home Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: Sam Location: SE Michigan Posts: 637 Trading: (18)	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money My son has a 2000 Grand Prix that requires the engine to be pulled just to change the spark plugs...$300 just in labor alone! And they wonder why they can't sell a car here in the Motor City... __________________ Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

03-06-2009, 07:49 AM	#11
Buena Fortuna Feeling at Home Join Date: Oct 2008 First Name: Sam Location: SE Michigan Posts: 637 Trading: (18)	Re: Worst New Cars For Your Money While we may be getting leaner to survive, and meaner by nature, *we'll always be the Motor City!!!* [/quote] AMEN BROTHER! __________________ Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.