|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 08:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I think that especially the Mazda 3 sedan looks great, and the 2.2 diesel engine is fantastic. Love their soul red/white leather combo.
I'm not a fan of the CT200h, imo it drives and looks like a pensioners car.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 11:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Mazda3 looks great. However, it is not worth that price if it's anything like the new Mazda6. It's just overprice'd for that kind of quality.
i5 6600k @ 4.3 GHz | MSI z170 Gaming M7 | 32GB Kingston HyperX Fury | 850 Evo 500GB | EVGA 1070 SC | Seasonic X-660 | CM Storm Stryker
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 11:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Id go for a car around 3 years old. Lost a lot of its price, but still quite new.
i5-3570k @4.4gHz, MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4g OC'd, MSI z77a-g45, Corsair Vengeance 8gb 1600mHz, Corsair TX650 PSU, Crucial M4 128gb, WD 1.5 TB HDD, Seagate 1TB HDD, LG 27MB85R-B 1440p
RSI name: ctulu
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Mazda 3 with all features all the way.
The "hybrid" in the Lexus is just a glorified start-stop system, that can go only 2km on electric power, and is dead weight in highway travel = same as the Mazda's sky-active start-stop system.
in my opinion current start-stop systems are shit, and if possible I'd loose them
The Mazda's 165hp gas or 150hp diesel engines have more power than the combined hybrid output of the Lexus 134hp.
and Mazda's 3 all features has a lot of stuff like:
radar cruise control
electric driver's seat
heads up display !!! love this
audio BOSE system !!!
I think the only thing missing is the sun roof
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sanchin
Posts: 764
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Mar 2015 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
I love how the new Mazda 3 and 6 look. But they are fucking expensive here (as most of the cars, that's why the avarage age is more than 15 years...)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 00:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Is it really worth putting down so much money on modern cars? They break down in a sweat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 09:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Is it really worth cooking your meat? You can burn it in a sweat.
-
Yes, while modern electronics might be sensitive once in a while, the likeliness, that they will fail in the exact moment that you need them is absolutely minimal. You don't pay for that shit just for fun.
And I'd rather drive with a new fiat 500 than an 18 year old mercedes. At least I'll know that the 500 has a 5 star ncap rating while the mercedes will most likely kill me AND the other guy.
And in the event that one does not crash into someone/thing he'll benefit from the driving assistance, park distance control, traffic lane assistance, in-built navigation, hands free systems, more comfort, less noise, less pollution and smell, a better drive, acceleration, top speed, less fuel usage and much much more...
So the benefit of driving an old "reliable" car is that I'll be able to drive the motorized coffin for an extra 300.000km? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
id bet u the older cars of 10-15 years ago, have higher survival chance then the newer ones. Everyone is skimming on the top to make a buck these days. fancy plastic versus orbust tanks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 15:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, the tank is so robust, that you are destroyed inside, while the car doesn't have a scratch on the outside.
Lookup the ncap ratings 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 16:01 Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't say that 10 to 15 year old cars are reliable, on the contrary. For example, the electronics on early 2000 Mercedes are horrible. But at least they didn't rust anymore, like late 1990's Mercedes. French cars were even more rubbish than usual in the early 2000.
Even Toyota fucked up with their unreliable common rail diesel engines.
A lot of car manfacturers tried to take a higher profit margin by lowering the quality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 16:07 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still driving my 2007 Polo, bough on 14km from the dealer, going strong 95k now
generally no maintenance whatsoever
for the 8 years, out of warranty changed: rear bushings, rear hand break line, dynamo chip, key battery, 1 rear stop light, all headlights to aftermarket ones, wipers , 3-rd rear stop (whole is 2eur more than changing all the lights), battery, front break calipers
so yeah, going new saves you lots of maintenance money
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2015 17:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| PickupArtist wrote: | | id bet u the older cars of 10-15 years ago, have higher survival chance then the newer ones. Everyone is skimming on the top to make a buck these days. fancy plastic versus orbust tanks |
That fancy plastic on reasonably expensive/quality cars (midrange I mean) is designed to absord the impact, that's why it gets easily distorted. There's less G forces on the passengers this way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
