Posted by als on August 23, 2007, 9:31 pm
I am about to buy a used 2004 Prius with 69,554 miles on it for
$4000. Is this price too low? I checked the carfax report and it was
clean but I am nervous still that there might be something wrong with
the car. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm going to pick
it up in two days so any feedback would help.
Thanks!
Posted by Bob H on August 24, 2007, 2:49 am
>I am about to buy a used 2004 Prius with 69,554 miles on it for
> $4000. Is this price too low? I checked the carfax report and it was
> clean but I am nervous still that there might be something wrong with
> the car. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm going to pick
> it up in two days so any feedback would help.
> Thanks!
Have a competent shop ck it out before you lay out your money. Good
bodywork can be hard to spot. As can small leaks etc etc.
Posted by Michael Pardee on August 24, 2007, 12:30 pm
>I am about to buy a used 2004 Prius with 69,554 miles on it for
> $4000. Is this price too low? I checked the carfax report and it was
> clean but I am nervous still that there might be something wrong with
> the car. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm going to pick
> it up in two days so any feedback would help.
> Thanks!
It could be a great deal or the owner may know something you don't. In that
vein, two things come to mind. A good look at the undercarriage - especially
the catalytic and muffler - for damage is a good idea. It isn't hard to hit
either of those on a road hazard or even a large speed bump and do damage
that costs a couple thousand to fix.
The other area of concern is the transaxle. Failures are rare but are very
costly; I understand the part itself is $000 US. Listen for whines or howls
and pass it up if you hear any. It may not be the transaxle but that isn't a
chance I'd take unnecessarily. There are other transaxle failure symptoms
but those are hard to miss and hard to hide; serious loss of power (like
just enough to get off the road) and big warning lights on the speedometer
area.
Beyond that, the Prius has fewer trouble areas than most cars. I don't think
I've ever heard of head gasket trouble. Do check the coolants (there are
two) for traces of rust and walk away if you see any - that's my advice for
any car. The radiator is normal but there is also a translucent reservoir at
the top of the engine near the firewall for the inverter coolant. Both
should be pink and clean.
There is a service record booklet called "Passport to Performance" that
comes with the car. It should be up to date and I would hope the 60K mile
service was done. The 30K mile intervals are extensive checkups and deeper
maintenance. (There is no timing belt to be concerned about as there is on
many other cars.)
Mike
Posted by als on August 24, 2007, 3:28 pm
wrote:
a used 2004 Prius with 69,554 miles on it for
> > $4000. Is this price too low? I checked the carfax report and it was
> > clean but I am nervous still that there might be something wrong with
> > the car. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm going to pick
> > it up in two days so any feedback would help.
> > Thanks!
> It could be a great deal or the owner may know something you don't. In that
> vein, two things come to mind. A good look at the undercarriage - especially
> the catalytic and muffler - for damage is a good idea. It isn't hard to hit
> either of those on a road hazard or even a large speed bump and do damage
> that costs a couple thousand to fix.
> The other area of concern is the transaxle. Failures are rare but are very
> costly; I understand the part itself is $000 US. Listen for whines or howls
> and pass it up if you hear any. It may not be the transaxle but that isn't a
> chance I'd take unnecessarily. There are other transaxle failure symptoms
> but those are hard to miss and hard to hide; serious loss of power (like
> just enough to get off the road) and big warning lights on the speedometer
> area.
> Beyond that, the Prius has fewer trouble areas than most cars. I don't think
> I've ever heard of head gasket trouble. Do check the coolants (there are
> two) for traces of rust and walk away if you see any - that's my advice for
> any car. The radiator is normal but there is also a translucent reservoir at
> the top of the engine near the firewall for the inverter coolant. Both
> should be pink and clean.
> There is a service record booklet called "Passport to Performance" that
> comes with the car. It should be up to date and I would hope the 60K mile
> service was done. The 30K mile intervals are extensive checkups and deeper
> maintenance. (There is no timing belt to be concerned about as there is on
> many other cars.)
> Mike
Thank you so much!
I am going to pick it up tomorrow and I am going to print out your
message and take it with me.
The carfax has showed no problems but you never know. The dealership
that has the car is in Knoxville and I am in Atlanta. The guy that is
helping me said that it is their policy to lower the price on cars if
the have been on the lot for more than 25 days. The car was listed at
16k but now its 14k. He said that there is not a huge demand for the
Prius in Knoxville like there is in other cities (esp. Atlanta). If
you would like to take a look and let me know what you think here is a
link to where I found it.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id"3390270&dealer_id 0007440&default_sort=priceDESC&model3=&end_year 08&address0316&make2=&start_year 03&fuel=&certified=&keywordsrep=&color2=&search_type=both&max_mileage=&drive=&min_price=&distance00&engine=&transmission=&make=TOYOTA&model2=&keywordsfyc=&color3=&doors=&style_flag=1&max_price=&advanced=&make3=&model=PRIUS&color=
Thanks again for your comments! I really appreciate it!!!
alison
Posted by Piper on August 24, 2007, 5:20 pm
wrote:
> >> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated
> >> 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg
> >> highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of
> >> utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than
> >> my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at
> >> all in the last 20 years economy-wise.
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> >> > >Henry wrote:
> >> > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://Muvy.org
> >> > >> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and
> >> > >> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe
in
> >> > >> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly
> >> > >> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power
> >> > >> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of
course,
> >> > >> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
> >> > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power.
> >> > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The
> >> > >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars
> >> > >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue.
> >> > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well.
> >> > >> That model was not available in California, and did not have a
catalytic
> >> > >> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto
> >> > >> transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
> >> > >> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold
> >> > >> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
> >> > >Wrong again.
> >> > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got
> >> > >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one!
> >> > >> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the
> >> > >> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent...
> >> > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user
> >> > >friendly with regard to maintennace.
> >> > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land...
> >> > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my
> >> > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have
> >> > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe.
> >> > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't
> >> > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy
> >> > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern
> >> > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust
> >> > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had
> >> > already gotten a lot better by 1983.
> >> > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are
> >> > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater
> >> > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel
> >> > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly
> >> > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text -
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >I borrowed a new Honda Fit (with a stick) from a buddy for a weekend.
> >I liked the sporty engine feel. However, I got worse milage than on a
> >2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising
> >because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr.
> That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
> > I am
> >shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have
> >offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it
> >consumed 5l/100km or less.
> That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
> > I read that most people are getting their
> >milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy
> >milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires.
> >I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting
> >almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr.
> That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
> As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
> the EPA by owners at
> <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
> Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
> Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
> Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
> Tran AT AT MT MT
> ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
> range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
> # vehicles 17 13 15 32
> So the Fit did OK. - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway
driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost
1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just
purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide
less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been
informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30
synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end
of every 3rd day. Cheers.
> $4000. Is this price too low? I checked the carfax report and it was
> clean but I am nervous still that there might be something wrong with
> the car. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm going to pick
> it up in two days so any feedback would help.
> Thanks!