Budget car advice: Lancer 2009 GLX (old body) or City 1.3S M/T

**ghosthunter** · March 25th, 2009 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by ral

Yes, that is pretty much correct.

I plan to pay for the car over three years... savings from the City would take about 4 years based on my estimate (similar to yours, but I factored in the additional interest and slight higher insurance).

In my computation I just used the cost of fuel as my basis. I just assumed other costs would be similar to each other (financing, insurance, maintenance).

Been looking at another option... a 1997-1998 316i or 320i

But am worried this option might actually cost me as much in maintenance and repairs as it does in savings.

If you are on a limited budget, an old BMW is not a good idea. If you are going to buy a weekend toy, then why not, I also like to have a late 80s BMW 3 series two-door but maintenance costs can be kinda high.

**buchieboy** · March 25th, 2009 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

In my computation I just used the cost of fuel as my basis. I just assumed other costs would be similar to each other (financing, insurance, maintenance).

If you are on a limited budget, an old BMW is not a good idea. If you are going to buy a weekend toy, then why not, I also like to have a late 80s BMW 3 series two-door but maintenance costs can be kinda high.

Skip the BMW part. maintenance is really expensive

**vinz79** · March 26th, 2009 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by ral

The BIGGER car part:

Actually, the Vios has much less legroom than the City, and the Lancer is actually smaller inside than the City.

1. The City is wider and longer than the Vios. The front and rear legroom of the City actually feels the same as a Civic.

2. The Lancer is not really all that bigger than the City even on the outside. Both cars have the same width. The Lancer is 4 inches longer (but that get used up the the longer nose and tail).

Why is the City so big? Well cause the big brother Civic is wider and longer than the old body lancer by a fair margin.

The ENGINE part:

The engine, is where the difference really is. Test drove the City and it is adequate.

City: 100HP/127 ft-lbs
Lancer: 110HP/141 ft-lbs

The Lancer is not all that much more powerful, but it does deliver more power at the lower revs. The City's engine needs to rev pretty high for highway overtaking.

RESALE value:

I keep cars a long time, so resale value is of little importance to me.

I'm also torn between these two vehicles. Like you I'm planning to hold on to the car. There's no question that the City looks much better but I'm worried that it might not last very long especially when taken for long drives because of its low power engine. I am not really knowledgeable about cars. Is the power difference between these cars significant? Do you think that the city can withstand long distance travel?

**ghosthunter** · March 26th, 2009 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by vinz79

There's no question that the City looks much better but I'm worried that it might not last very long especially when taken for long drives because of its low power engine. I am not really knowledgeable about cars. Is the power difference between these cars significant? Do you think that the city can withstand long distance travel?

It's small displacement engine would be more than enough for long distance travel. The question is... can you withstand driving long distances? The current City and Jazz will not be breaking the old Petron sponsored mileage challenge distances but it just shows what can be done by these modern small cars.

**actor21** · March 26th, 2009 08:58 AM

*sir GhostHunter approve po ako sa loan ko for a 1.3 AT Honda Jazz 2009 (sorry makikisingit na din)..pero madami nagsasabi na di na daw kasing tipid itong bagon Jazz or City compare don sa luma? please help...ayoko uli magsisi waaaaaaaaaaa

**ghosthunter** · March 26th, 2009 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by actor21

*sir GhostHunter approve po ako sa loan ko for a 1.3 AT Honda Jazz 2009 (sorry makikisingit na din)..pero madami nagsasabi na di na daw kasing tipid itong bagon Jazz or City compare don sa luma? please help...ayoko uli magsisi waaaaaaaaaaa

Unfortunately it's true. The current Jazz 1.3L A/T is not as fuel efficient as the older model with CVT A/T. But the trade off is the current Jazz uses a more traditional A/T system with avoids the relatively fragile CVT system of the older Jazz.

The new Jazz is still a great buy even if you won't be breaking the 1000km per full tank of gasoline record with it.

If you really want to maximize the fuel mileage out of every drop of gasoline, I would suggest getting the M/T version. Otherwise, just enjoy the ease of driving of the A/T version and don't worry about the slight increase in fuel consumption in fuel with the traditional A/T. It's still lower than what you would get if you got the Honda Civic A/T.

**actor21** · March 26th, 2009 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

Unfortunately it's true. The current Jazz 1.3L A/T is not as fuel efficient as the older model with CVT A/T. But the trade off is the current Jazz uses a more traditional A/T system with avoids the relatively fragile CVT system of the older Jazz.

The new Jazz is still a great buy even if you won't be breaking the 1000km per full tank of gasoline record with it.

If you really want to maximize the fuel mileage out of every drop of gasoline, I would suggest getting the M/T version. Otherwise, just enjoy the ease of driving of the A/T version and don't worry about the slight increase in fuel consumption in fuel with the traditional A/T. It's still lower than what you would get if you got the Honda Civic A/T.

currently kase ang MZ3 ko masuwerte na kung maka 400kms sa 42liters..
sana dito sa new Jazz madoble ko or maski 790kms man lang sa 40 liters...