Top 10 Luxury Vehicles Under $45,000 for 2004
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Top 10 Luxury Vehicles Under $45,000 for 2004
#2
Suzuka Master
I still find it funny that mags out there will rate these cars so high (like the 5 series and E and CLK class) when they barely start at under the point for the rankings. When you throw any equipment in there, they're way higher. Makes no sense.
#3
Originally posted by kurt_bradley
I still find it funny that mags out there will rate these cars so high (like the 5 series and E and CLK class) when they barely start at under the point for the rankings. When you throw any equipment in there, they're way higher. Makes no sense.
I still find it funny that mags out there will rate these cars so high (like the 5 series and E and CLK class) when they barely start at under the point for the rankings. When you throw any equipment in there, they're way higher. Makes no sense.
#4
Drifting
Thread Starter
Originally posted by gilboman
a good car with less equipment is much better than a not so good car with lots of equipment....
a good car with less equipment is much better than a not so good car with lots of equipment....
#5
UK Spec
Originally posted by Jason
I'm sorry Bilbo, but the TSX and TL are good cars. Good enough to make the Top 10 list. I know you agree with that.
I'm sorry Bilbo, but the TSX and TL are good cars. Good enough to make the Top 10 list. I know you agree with that.
but sitting in a base 320i, the interior is cheap..
but the built is much better than tsx.. the rigidity feel of the built..
#6
Teh seX
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: unknown
Age: 40
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gilboman
a good car with less equipment is much better than a not so good car with lots of equipment....
a good car with less equipment is much better than a not so good car with lots of equipment....
![Bandito](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/bandito.gif)
![Confused](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
#7
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cool your boots
guys cool your boots here - these folks listed the Saab 9-5 - that alone means you can throw this list way.
Saab 9-5 are you kidding me? that things is a torque steering relic of some 10 years ago. Faster depreciation can only be achieved by buying an Impala
Their credibility goes away when they make that choice.
A
Saab 9-5 are you kidding me? that things is a torque steering relic of some 10 years ago. Faster depreciation can only be achieved by buying an Impala
Their credibility goes away when they make that choice.
A
Trending Topics
#8
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Age: 49
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^
Totally agree...this top 10 list should be thrown out the door. Edmunds has always been biased towards German made vehicles. Plus in that list they have included 2 SUV's. Why bother comparing SUV's with sedans in the first place?
Totally agree...this top 10 list should be thrown out the door. Edmunds has always been biased towards German made vehicles. Plus in that list they have included 2 SUV's. Why bother comparing SUV's with sedans in the first place?
#9
Originally posted by TSXforme
^
Totally agree...this top 10 list should be thrown out the door. Edmunds has always been biased towards German made vehicles. Plus in that list they have included 2 SUV's. Why bother comparing SUV's with sedans in the first place?
^
Totally agree...this top 10 list should be thrown out the door. Edmunds has always been biased towards German made vehicles. Plus in that list they have included 2 SUV's. Why bother comparing SUV's with sedans in the first place?
As for the inclusion of the 9-5 I would agree if they were touting it as a sedan, they however are listing it only as a wagon. It fairs better as a wagon since there aren't many wagons on the market in the class currently, which don't have some serious cross-over pretense. I guess I am saying maybe they tried to cover the whole gamut by including a true wagon and were left with not many excellent choices. Still suspect I agree.
Acura makes head cars not heart cars, top X lists tend to be more devoted to heart cars. FWD chassis will never be the darlings of the auto press as they get to drive tons of cars and usually tend to prefer exciting cars over practical cars, FWDrivers tend to start the game a few notches down on the excitement scale. This may or may not trip your trigger.
Vandy
#10
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Age: 55
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by NeoChaser
i agree with u both...
but sitting in a base 320i, the interior is cheap..
but the built is much better than tsx.. the rigidity feel of the built..
i agree with u both...
but sitting in a base 320i, the interior is cheap..
but the built is much better than tsx.. the rigidity feel of the built..
![Bow](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/bow.gif)
#11
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally posted by ilitig8
If you look the list is luxury VEHICLES and includes sedans, coupes, wagons, SUVs and sports cars. There are arguably no sedan only cars included (you could argue the A6 (since the wagon is significantly different and the 5er since I don't think the Touring is here yet)
As for the inclusion of the 9-5 I would agree if they were touting it as a sedan, they however are listing it only as a wagon. It fairs better as a wagon since there aren't many wagons on the market in the class currently, which don't have some serious cross-over pretense. I guess I am saying maybe they tried to cover the whole gamut by including a true wagon and were left with not many excellent choices. Still suspect I agree.
Acura makes head cars not heart cars, top X lists tend to be more devoted to heart cars. FWD chassis will never be the darlings of the auto press as they get to drive tons of cars and usually tend to prefer exciting cars over practical cars, FWDrivers tend to start the game a few notches down on the excitement scale. This may or may not trip your trigger.
Vandy
If you look the list is luxury VEHICLES and includes sedans, coupes, wagons, SUVs and sports cars. There are arguably no sedan only cars included (you could argue the A6 (since the wagon is significantly different and the 5er since I don't think the Touring is here yet)
As for the inclusion of the 9-5 I would agree if they were touting it as a sedan, they however are listing it only as a wagon. It fairs better as a wagon since there aren't many wagons on the market in the class currently, which don't have some serious cross-over pretense. I guess I am saying maybe they tried to cover the whole gamut by including a true wagon and were left with not many excellent choices. Still suspect I agree.
Acura makes head cars not heart cars, top X lists tend to be more devoted to heart cars. FWD chassis will never be the darlings of the auto press as they get to drive tons of cars and usually tend to prefer exciting cars over practical cars, FWDrivers tend to start the game a few notches down on the excitement scale. This may or may not trip your trigger.
Vandy
![Grin Fawk](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/grinfawk.gif)
I don't know about you, but I've driven a 9-5 Aero wagon and it was pretty bad. The body has a lot of flex, the interior is an ergonomic mess, the suspension is under-damped, and the steering is numb. This list is absurd to include this car.
The Z4 is not as good as people would like to make it sound. Trust me, I know. I've nearly crashed one before. In real world, off track driving, it's not quite willing enough to rotate.
And kurt is right. Magazines need to be more realistic when pricing cars. Instead of relying on the base price, they should go by average purchase price. Most of the people that buy these cars aren't gonna buy a stripped down model. In fact, they're more likely to buy the fully loaded model. This means the base prices are usually absurdly off the mark.
Also, I think limited production models like the M3 and S4 should not factor into "luxury" car top 10 lists. They may fall into the category, but usually the magazines base the appeal of the entire model line around a limited production model instead of the more pedestrian models that most people buy.
#13
I agree with Kurt_B. You can't even find a mercedes with the cheapest option package. If you special ordered one and waited 6 months then maybe it would fall under 45k.
#14
Re: Top 10 Luxury Vehicles Under $45,000 for 2004
Originally posted by Jason
That's insane.
That's insane.
![Dunno](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/dunno.gif)
#18
I love my G sedan
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: CA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of list is this? No Acura TL? No Acura TSX? No Infiniti G35 sedan? You can't really find a BMW 530i for $45k, although theoretically it is possible. And I find it funny for 525i, a very underpowered sedan, to be in the list. I like CLK very much, but is it under $45k also? Audi A4 is not good enough to be one of the top ten.
#19
Originally posted by SilverCL225hp
What kind of list is this? No Acura TL? No Acura TSX? No Infiniti G35 sedan? You can't really find a BMW 530i for $45k, although theoretically it is possible. And I find it funny for 525i, a very underpowered sedan, to be in the list. I like CLK very much, but is it under $45k also? Audi A4 is not good enough to be one of the top ten.
What kind of list is this? No Acura TL? No Acura TSX? No Infiniti G35 sedan? You can't really find a BMW 530i for $45k, although theoretically it is possible. And I find it funny for 525i, a very underpowered sedan, to be in the list. I like CLK very much, but is it under $45k also? Audi A4 is not good enough to be one of the top ten.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rockyboy
2G RDX (2013-2018)
171
08-04-2024 10:35 AM
Yumcha
Automotive News
1
09-17-2015 09:01 PM