Bought my last Honda.

Keep your Honda. You have barely used it. You probably own it. It is way cheaper to run than anything you would buy. If it does not get enough use just have Zelda drive it 2 days a week. It sounds like it fits your skiing needs and you walk to work. The couple MPG you MIGHT pick up will take years to make up the money you spend on a new car.

However, if you are sick of your Honda and have the cash/trade value to get what you want, make the switch.

x10003q wrote

Keep your Honda. You have barely used it. You probably own it. It is way cheaper to run than anything you would buy. If it does not get enough use just have Zelda drive it 2 days a week. It sounds like it fits your skiing needs and you walk to work. The couple MPG you MIGHT pick up will take years to make up the money you spend on a new car.

However, if you are sick of your Honda and have the cash/trade value to get what you want, make the switch.

This makes a lot of sense. And I'm a drive it into the ground kind of guy. But what we've learned is that (even with Zelda driving the CRV, which she started to do two years ago) the rust progresses very fast.  At around the six year mark we've have to sell the thing - while the visible body looks good - to get a decent amount in return.  We got 10k for the 1998 when it was eight years old. It had 80,000 miles, and LOOKED great, but had issues underneath.

Harvey44 wrote

Sponge: What's the down side of driving the Sube every day?  I don't drive every day - mostly just on the weekends - but still would like to know.

Just my opinion, but I find Subarus are quite boring as an everyday car. If you're accustomed to driving ANY Honda, you might notice what I'm talking about. Just make sure you try some twisty roads and a good bit of highway if you test drive one. OTOH, the Subaru will get you up that driveway without fail.

Spongeworthy wrote

Just my opinion, but I find Subarus are quite boring as an everyday car. If you're accustomed to driving ANY Honda, you might notice what I'm talking about. Just make sure you try some twisty roads and a good bit of highway if you test drive one. OTOH, the Subaru will get you up that driveway without fail.

I drive a Subaru almost every day (unless my wife steals it) and it is far from boring. Granted, ours is the rather more sporty and lighter Impreza, with a 5-speed and the same 2.5 L engine as the base Outback. I pass Hondas all the time. The car will do 150 kph (94 mph) without complaining. Don't ask me how I know this. Spongeworthy is correct though, put four snow tires on the Outback and it will be unstoppable in snow. I will add that I was skeptical about Subaru's "vehicle dynamics control" but it has saved my lead-footed butt several times on both gravel and snow. Always remember that time on the road is time not skiing. A car that will get you the hill faster and safely is a key part of the quiver.

If you really don't want boring, get one of these (though Harv might need two roof boxes):

01-05 WRX's are pretty quick, 06-08 are a bit quicker (up to a 2.5L engine from 2.0L), and the 2008+ are just stoopid fast.

I raced one in my Santa Fe about an hour ago. Probably a 2009 or 2010. Started at a 40mph roll (when he didn't know we were racing) and ended with him passing me at about 65. Solid "race". I think he got a good kick out of it. I know I did

Sick Bird Rider wrote

I drive a Subaru almost every day (unless my wife steals it) and it is far from boring. Granted, ours is the rather more sporty and lighter Impreza, with a 5-speed and the same 2.5 L engine as the base Outback.

I figured Harv was thinking about something at least as big as a Legacy Outback or a  Tribeca. Here's the deal:

If you have a big boat, you need a big vehicle to tow it. If you have a hairy driveway at the end of your trip, you need something that will get up that driveway. That thing is a Subaru.

Harvey44 wrote

I am on my sixth Honda. In a row.   Bought it new in 2006.

Today the alternator went and I'm out nearly 400 bills.

Ok the car is six years old and maybe that's reasonable life for an alternator.

But I've come to expect more.  Hondas just aren't the best cars made anymore.

Hyundai? Or something, here I come.

Actually who am I kidding. The sucker is paid off, and I don't have the cash for another car payment.  

But the next car will be somethin' else.

Looks like I'm eating these words:

http://www.nyskiblog.com/2012/03/ultimate-ski-car-2012-honda-crv.html

I got really close to buying the CRV just before Christmas when my '03 Explorer, with 215000 miles, died on the way home from Lake Placid one Sunday evening.

At the last minute, I decided to go with the Pilot instead ... there are often times when I need to carry extra passengers, and I'm always hauling stuff ... in spite of the reduced gas mileage & the extra price, so far I'm pretty happy with the Pilot. This is my first Honda ... there are definitely a few things that I really DON'T like about it, but overall ... it's OK. Not sure that I'd buy another one, but I guess time will tell.

Harvey44 wrote

   Hondas just aren't the best cars made anymore.

 

Seems that Consumer Reports agrees with you

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/02/subaru-most-reliable-brand-overall-in-consumer-reports-list/1

Harvey44 wrote

the rust progresses very fast.  At around the six year mark we've have to sell the thing - while the visible body looks good - to get a decent amount in return.  We got 10k for the 1998 when it was eight years old. It had 80,000 miles, and LOOKED great, but had issues underneath.

I'm going to guess you don't garage your vehicles.  You will have the same rust issue on the new one in 5-6 years too.

nvk497 wrote

I'm going to guess you don't garage your vehicles.  You will have the same rust issue on the new one in 5-6 years too.

We don't have easy access to a garage.  But that's doesn't seem to be it, at least not totally. My wife's car is also a 2006 Honda, it sits right next to mine and has no rust issues.  I think it has to do with the way I drive.  I walk to work so my car is only used for trips to the mountains, and the rest of the week it sits idle.  That rusts the brakes and exhaust especially.

We've worked on a system where Zelda drives my car every other day, but that has other costs to it, and hasn't seemed to help.  I've accepted that my car will need to be replaced every six years.  The new CRVs are about 25k+ and I've been getting 10k for the 6 year old version, so the payments are pretty low especially on this one as interest rates are really low now.

More crow to eat.  

Took this right before I went up the big hill on 87 before you get to Warrensburg. I knew that big hill would drop me down:



On a tank fillup designed to produce an awesome mpg, I gassed up 5 miles from the interstate and refilled within 2 miles of getting off the highway. Pulled 34.8 MPG over 232 miles on a trip from the flatlands to Warren county.  27 mpg after that on 25 miles in the mtns.

Better than I expected. I figured 32 would be the upper limits under ideal conditions.

Did you calculate manually using Miles/Gallons between two fill ups or is that just based on the car's comp? Impressive if that is the actually calculated MPG.

I actually did both and was amazed at how close they were:

Digital: 34.8 mpg

Calculation: 232 miles / 6.67 Gallons = 34.78 mpg

I always go with no top off.

The first time I checked the digital vs "actual" was the night I drove from NSBS in NH back to the cabin. It was within 1/10 of an mpg. So I never checked it again until this trip.  Very cool to be able to trust the digital and not have to do the math.

I also looked at my second trip meter which I realized I could never reset and keep ongoing mileage. I started leaving trip meter B alone on the way home from the mtns on 3/2.  I've driven 1300 miles since then and my mileage is 28.8.  That's probably 850 miles of highway and 450 of tooling around the roads of NJ.

that is impressive..how fast were you driving??

Very nice! That is amazingly accurate for a car comp. Mine is generally 2 MPG too high.

I mostly used the cruise control. About half the time at 68 and half at 71.  

The car has an instantaneous mpg gauge that just has "0" on the left "30" in the middle and "60" at the right with little leds in between to indicate mpgs on between those numbers.

I figured that as long as I was above 30 I was good. The 71 mph speeds didn't seem to use much more gas on a flat road.

The Eco button does take some of the fun out of driving (as does cruise control) but it is very cool too.  It allows the cruise to drop a few miles per hour in an incline to save gas, and it seems to cut the AC on the hills too.

It's a big jump from my last CRV. With the 2006, I could pull 29 mpg from with cruise at 65.  68 gave me 27 mpg, and 71 gave me 25 mpg.

Don't you mean 58 and 61?

X calls BS!  (I want that BS emoticon).

If I'd known I'd have to prove my numbers I'da kept my receipt. You've driven with me enough to know I stick to 68 - what is that 12 mph slower than your avg speed?  I wouldn't add an hour to my trip to save 3 mpg.

Harvey44 wrote

.. 27 mpg after that on 25 miles in the mtns...

More data on this tank.

I made 2 more trips into town (Harvey Road is steep) and the digital said 25 mpg this morning when I left the cabin.  I drove down secondary roads (Rte 8 crosses the shoulder of 11th mountain) and then on to Route 30 down to Plattekill, with the rolling hills that entails.  After my meeting in Roxbury, I drove all the way back to 87 and gased up right near Potter Brothers.

Digital MPG readout: 29.1

Calculation: 272.4 miles / 9.27 Gallons = 29.38 mpg.

So I guess the digital isn't as perfect as I thought. Still under .5 mpg error seems to be pretty accurate.

After the fill up: all interstate, plus 15 miles of stop and go in NJ gave me 31.4 on the digital.

Hard to figure why this is 3+ mpg lower than Friday night.  The only difference was rain, wipers, lights. Could that matter?  Hard to imagine that being that much of a difference.  I actually drove slower today than I did on Friday: 65-68 mph.