So.... how are the driving lessons going?

[Neonred 3,517]

M wife bought a (new) 2007 Chevy Aveo 5 for $8,000. They listed it as "the cheapest new car in America". Has a 5 star rating though, with side impact airbags standard. Spent $700 on studded tires (with wheels) though - but I think it's safe and it is perfect for a little in-town car, which is what she wanted. It's also a stick, which is ironic, because when I bought my Jeep, I got an automatic - mostly for her benefit. Oh well.

I see the Korean made "Chevy" Aveo was recently rated on of the worst cars currently sold in the US

[akdiver 3]

I see the Korean made "Chevy" Aveo was recently rated on of the worst cars currently sold in the US

Yeah, my Jeep was also on that list.

The people that make such lists are complete morons.

[Merle 458]

There were only a few cars she liked. Beetles, Hyundai Tiberon's Toyota Celicas and yesterday she added Cougars to the list so we got a Red Cougar.

A 6-cyl sports car for a new driver? You guys are crazy.

6 cylinder sportscar? Isn't that a oxymoron?

[Neonred 3,517]

I see the Korean made "Chevy" Aveo was recently rated on of the worst cars currently sold in the US

Yeah, my Jeep was also on that list.

The people that make such lists are complete morons.

The people that spend $13,000 or $14,000 for an Aveo are the real morons.

I'm sure it's worth the $8000, but I'd take the Jeep first.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Neonred

[Ban Hammer 13,112]

She made a shrieking noise of some kind hissing sound and then next thing I knew she was talking about going to work or something....

[Chuckles 0]

I see the Korean made "Chevy" Aveo was recently rated on of the worst cars currently sold in the US

Yeah, my Jeep was also on that list.

The people that make such lists are complete morons.

The people that spend $13,000 or $14,000 for an Aveo are the real morons.

I'm sure it's worth the $8000, but I'd take the Jeep first.

How can you rate a vehicle whose main purpose is off-road... on the road? Hence the low rating.

Why wouldn't you expect one of the lowest price point vehicles to rate at the bottom of the list vs. BMW's and say a Lexus?

I think the morons are the ones who interpret without reading or understanding.

[akdiver 3]

The people that spend $13,000 or $14,000 for an Aveo are the real morons.

I agree. If you spend $13,000 for something that you can get for $8000, you're definitely a moron (:

As for that list - they rank the Aveo 5 so low because it lacks features and has a cheap feel. Well duh! What the hell do you want for $8000? Then they compare it to the Toyota Yaris and the Honda version of a cheap car (can't recall the name off hand), which sell for almost twice as much. It's hardly a reasonable comparison.

My Jeep made the list for little reason other than its a Jeep. They compare it with non-Jeep vehicles which could never meet the functionality of a Jeep and completely ignore the reason why people buy Jeeps instead of "more refined" vehicles. If Jeeps were made the way these list people wanted them to be made, they would no longer be Jeeps. In short - the list makers an such are all morons.

By the way - had the Aveo 5 for about 18 months now and it has not given us any trouble at all, except the fuel pump went out for some reason - and that was of course replaced under warranty. Had the Jeep for about the same period of time - it has been no problem at all (:

[Satellite 1]

If you want to add to the moron list:

Anyone who buys a new car or even better anyone who buys one with a clean title.

The Russian community here in Sacramento is pretty good at splicing together two vehicles to get you any brand, model, and year with salvage title and the price tag being half of the used car price on KBB.

[akdiver 3]

Why wouldn't you expect one of the lowest price point vehicles to rate at the bottom of the list vs. BMW's and say a Lexus?

It's not reasonable to rate a cheap vehicle low just because it is a cheap vehicle. It would be like rating a BMW or Lexus as low, simply because they are expensive vehicles. You need to rate a vehicle within the context in which it competes. In other words, for the Aveo 5 - the question is not, "how well does this vehicle rate relative to a BMW?" - it should be "how well does this vehicle rate as an extremely inexpensive, basic, no-frills vehicle?"

How can you rate a vehicle whose main purpose is off-road... on the road? Hence the low rating.

Again - rate it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

These people doing the ratings claim to be unbiased, however, the very criteria they use for rating reflect a bias, and for some vehicles, such as a Jeep, are simply inappropriate metrics. I'm sure I could develop a suite of metrics that very fine vehicles such as ferarris and corvettes would rate poorly in, while my Jeep does very well. The metrics used for ratings should be reasonable and appropriate for the vehicle being rated. Many times, this is not the case. It's like rating a motorcycle poorly because it can't carry 4 passengers. That's just a meaningless metric for the vehicle.

Hell, look at what CR rated as the best SUV of 2008. The Mirauno or whatever. Give me a break. Like anyone is going to take that thing off road. If they did, it would never make it back. This video pretty much sums it up:

Edited June 29, 2008 by akdiver

[slim 1,514]

Funny that video was posted by Ak something or other.....

Makes me wanna go out and get my Wrangler X all dirty. Of course, here in the urban jungle, off-roading, it's not so challenging. The hard part is to find some dirt!

[Satellite 1]

Hell, look at what CR rated as the best SUV of 2008. The Mirauno or whatever. Give me a break. Like anyone is going to take that thing off road. If they did, it would never make it back. This video pretty much sums it up:

Ak, is the trail featured in the video indicative of the road conditions where you live?

Probably not. For the average American living in the Urban / suburban jungle, their vehicle is never going to go off road, and many will never even use the 4 wheel drive option. In todays market and rising fuel costs, the sub compact car is looking a whole lot better than a large vehicle whether it be the H1 or the Jeep. I tend to disagree with the video, mostly because the average consumer is on the road and all cars should be rated based on some basic features like handling, acceleration, space, safety, fuel economy, reliability, towing abilities, and off road abilities. But one having only one decent feature should not automatically elevate it above all others simply because the others vehicles might be lacking in that same category. I think consumer reports is right for looking at the whole of the car and practicality of the car. And a category of "SUV" is sufficiently small to characterize those types of vehicles. Because if we break them up any further then each car will have its own category or "purpose" it will make the rating system even more worthless.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Satellite

[akdiver 3]

Ak, is the trail featured in the video indicative of the road conditions where you live?

Pretty close - esp. during spring breakup (:

I think consumer reports is right for looking at the whole of the car and practicality of the car. And a category of "SUV" is sufficiently small to characterize those types of vehicles. Because if we break them up any further then each car will have its own category or "purpose" it will make the rating system even more worthless.

Therefore, a Ferrari should rate very poorly because it is very expensive to buy, very expensive to maintain and lacks room for more than 2 passengers. What an awful awful car that must be. The fact that the vehicle is not designed or marketed as an economical soccer mom transporter doesn't matter.

[Turboguy 6]

There were only a few cars she liked. Beetles, Hyundai Tiberon's Toyota Celicas and yesterday she added Cougars to the list so we got a Red Cougar.

A 6-cyl sports car for a new driver? You guys are crazy.

Well probably, but with the current price of gasoline it is hard to find or afford anything that falls into the class of 4 cylinder economy vehicles (you know the stripped down pieces of junk they normally can't give away) If you are lucky enough to find an economical vehicle and you ask them for a discount they look at you like you are nuts even though the price is sky high. The two cougars we looked at they nearly begged us to take them and my offer was nearly 20% below asking price. She does love her cougar and it does seem to get good mileage.

Want to try an experiment. Go on the website of the Smart ForTwo car and look at the prices. You will see base prices for this tiny two seater car with 45 GPM starting at $12,???,00 Now go on eBay and see if the prices you see for used ones don't hit in the $ 19,000-28,000 range.

[Neonred 3,517]

Ak, is the trail featured in the video indicative of the road conditions where you live?

Pretty close - esp. during spring breakup (:

I think consumer reports is right for looking at the whole of the car and practicality of the car. And a category of "SUV" is sufficiently small to characterize those types of vehicles. Because if we break them up any further then each car will have its own category or "purpose" it will make the rating system even more worthless.

Therefore, a Ferrari should rate very poorly because it is very expensive to buy, very expensive to maintain and lacks room for more than 2 passengers. What an awful awful car that must be. The fact that the vehicle is not designed or marketed as an economical soccer mom transporter doesn't matter.

I think a Ferrari is a lot like my Russian wife.....

Great to look at

It's a wild ride

So damn expensive to maintain

Edited July 3, 2008 by Neonred

[Ban Hammer 13,112]

Ak, is the trail featured in the video indicative of the road conditions where you live?

Pretty close - esp. during spring breakup (:

I think consumer reports is right for looking at the whole of the car and practicality of the car. And a category of "SUV" is sufficiently small to characterize those types of vehicles. Because if we break them up any further then each car will have its own category or "purpose" it will make the rating system even more worthless.

Therefore, a Ferrari should rate very poorly because it is very expensive to buy, very expensive to maintain and lacks room for more than 2 passengers. What an awful awful car that must be. The fact that the vehicle is not designed or marketed as an economical soccer mom transporter doesn't matter.

I think a Ferrari is a lot like my Russian wife.....

Great to look at

It's a wild ride

So damn expensive to maintain