With our cars being around 7 years old now, it will soon be time to look into the car market again. This time around though, we won't be purchasing NEW vehicles as they depreciate 15% as soon as you drive it off the lot. Why not buy a car that is 2-3 years old and let someone else pay for the depreciation?
This article on MSN Autos caught my eye as they listed the best and worst used vehicles of 2007. Here is the list:
- Chevy Aveo – Minor timing belt issues.
- Pontiac Wave – Again timing belt issues.
- Suzuki Aerio – Failing air conditioning problems.
- Ford Ranger – Uncommon problems include automatic transmission, front end components may wear quickly.
- Mazda B-Series – Same as above as they are made from the same assembly line.
- Kia Sorrento – Uncommon problems include driveshaft replacement, bad transfer cases and transmissions.
- Mitsubishi Outlander – No mechanical deficiencies to speak of. Models built after 2003 have better engines.
- Cadillac CTS – avoid 2003 model as it had various problems with power steering, batteries and transmission.
Not so Decent:
- 2003 Acura TL – Faulty automatic transmissions
- 1999-2002 Saab – Catalytic converter placed under oil pan, causing sludge.
- 2003-2004 Saturn Ion – Faulty automatic transmissions and broken ignition switches.
- Audi TT Coupe (first gen) – Numerous mechanical and electrical glitches. 2003 and later is ok.
- Mercury Cougar – Short lived alternators, fuel pumps, battery cables along with numerous other electrical problems. In addition, transmission, air conditioner, catalytic convert and sunroof issues. In other words, avoid altogether.
My question is, where are the Honda's and Toyota's in the decent list? Aren't they known to be the longest lasting cars?
What are your thoughts on the best used cars in the market today in terms of "bang for your buck"?If you would like to read more articles like this, you can sign up for my free weekly money tips newsletter below (we will never spam you).