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

[ral]

Was wondering if I could ask advice on which car to get. I have narrowed down my choices to the following:

2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GLX (old body)
2009 Honda CIty 1.3S M/T

Feature wise the too are close.

- Driver seating room in both cars is good. I have also looked at the Toyota Vios and Altis and find the space a bit tight. Actually, our cars now are a 1995 Corolla (first owned, 184,000km, original engine) and a 2003 Vios (great car until I have been sitting in it for one hour).

- Both cars seem to be equal in safety features, dual air bags, side impact beams, and decent brakes. The Lancer has disk brakes all around but no ABS or EBD. The City has drums at the back but has ABS and EDB.

- Price. The Lancer cost Php635,000 while the City cost Php716,000. The City should be more fuel efficient. Getting the car on bank financing so the price difference between the two is about 90K after interest.

Thanks for any advice.

Want to recommend other cars? Fine, but not the Vios or Altis and nothing more than 750K.

[ghosthunter]

From your two options, the 2009 Honda City 1.3L M/T is the better choice.


Other possible choice:

Nissan Sentra 1.3L GX M/T * P600K Price list
http://www.auto-searchphilippines.com/NissanSentra.html

[1D4LV]

Was wondering if I could ask advice on which car to get. I have narrowed down my choices to the following:

2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GLX (old body)
2009 Honda CIty 1.3S M/T

Feature wise the too are close.

- Driver seating room in both cars is good. I have also looked at the Toyota Vios and Altis and find the space a bit tight. Actually, our cars now are a 1995 Corolla (first owned, 184,000km, original engine) and a 2003 Vios (great car until I have been sitting in it for one hour).

- Both cars seem to be equal in safety features, dual air bags, side impact beams, and decent brakes. The Lancer has disk brakes all around but no ABS or EBD. The City has drums at the back but has ABS and EDB.

- Price. The Lancer cost Php635,000 while the City cost Php716,000. The City should be more fuel efficient. Getting the car on bank financing so the price difference between the two is about 90K after interest.

Thanks for any advice.

Want to recommend other cars? Fine, but not the Vios or Altis and nothing more than 750K.

the city is more fuel efficient between two cars + it has a bigger resale value, so getting it will be more cost efficient in the long run.

[Gerbo]

I'd pick the new City. You will enjoy driving it more.

[ral]

I was thinking that the more thrifty City might save enough money to pay for the price difference.

[buchieboy]

I was thinking that the more thrifty City might save enough money to pay for the price difference.

definitely city. Will last you longer, has more toys inside. The 1.3L is good enough for city driving

[ghosthunter]

I was thinking that the more thrifty City might save enough money to pay for the price difference.

The savings might not be as big as you might think.

Assuming the City saves 25% on fuel as compared to the Lancer's fuel bill of P2000/week. That saving equates to about P500/week. It would still take 40 months or 3.38 years for the City to pay for the difference.

[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).

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.

[istan]

Actually...Lancer ang the best choice.
1. Bigger car. More space.
2. No ABS, EBD, but as long as you drive slowly over wet roads, you'll be fine. On dry roads, as long as your brakes are properly maintained...no problem na rin.
3. At current fuel prices, a full tank costs P1,600. Should last over 400 - 450 kms. (City driving) Any less, means you're stuck in traffic more often. Highway driving 15km/l is normal -> Manila -> Batangas route. Tipid na yun.
4. 1.6L has more oomph over 1.3L. Read reviews on the Honda City 1.3L. No power at all. Feels zippy at the city though, because of its small profile. On highway...its slow.
5. Space in the city = Vios. Sit in it for 1 hr...its tight. Just look at the interior size of the car. Its the same.
6. BMWs? If you have deep pockets...game. If not...do not even attempt. Unless you have a cheap good source of parts.
7. Assuming you'll get the CVT version of the Lancer. Its great in the city. At least relax ka sa pagdrive. No issues on the CVT tranny thus far, and this transmission is out 2004 pa.
8. In 1 year of driving, you'll forget about those P500/ week savings and be thankful, that you got a BIGGER car.

[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.

[ghosthunter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

*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]

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...