We've already had a 2013. We traded that for a 14 Outlander. Thinking now about a 16 OS AWC for my daily driver. For the price, they're not bad, like it was already said, it's not an X5 Beemer.
They are kinda cheap IMO now too.
I like the size and looks of the OS. and they've got a good warranty with some good standard features. Most everything now is pretty much light plastic.

 

Pretty hard to find anything better at this price point though. Until you pay double it is all pretty cheap plastic. That way of the world...

 

^
Exactly.
It's VERY difficult to find another practical CUV With AWD, Xenon HIDs, 8.5" ground clearance AND ALL the other features for around Low $20Ks.

And, another great thing about cheap plastics is.. they are cheap to replace (practically free at salvage yards, you just have to hunt)!

 

they dont wear like "soft touch" plastics. my 8 year old Evo's interior looks the same as the day it left the dealer lot. My Legacy GT had quite a few scratches, despite me being very careful and primarily the only one in it.

 

Alright..
Material "wear" is inevitable (on plastics or even metal), but you have to admit ANY of the "cheap" plastics these days in our Japanese CUVs are still way better than any kind of plastics incorporated in domestic vehicles (ie: GM, Fords, etc.)

In fact, I've seen (with my own eyes) a whole room full of OEM interior parts that was pulled from Cadillacs that involved cracked, warped, or simply broke knobs/panels/parts.
I was stunned to see there were SO many items that would break on a brand new (or fairly new, < a year old) Cadillacs.



*********************

Gees, I hate to date myself, but you remember the plastics used for interiors of Buicks Grand Nationals?(or any car/van/truck from that era) The color would start to fade after just two years and the dash panels itself would start to develop waves in the surface and big gaps would start to form between console/dash seams.
That's what I call Cheap plastics!

 

i'm not even talking domestic vehicles - in my case, i'm talking Subaru and Infiniti. "soft-touch" plastics wear VERY easily.

as long as the interior doesn't look low-rent Fisher Price like some domestics used to, i'm fine with it. i think Mitsubishi makes a nice, clean, and functional interior ... in the past 7 years at least. the Evo IX and earlier stuff did look pretty low rent econobox ...

around 2001 i had an '87 Lesabre T-Type as a winter beater (looked fast, wasn't LOL). the plastic was literally disintegrating. i had to reinforce the armrests with epoxy to keep them attached. dash warped, steering wheel center ring cracked and falling apart, etc.

 

Okay then..
You really do Know what CHEAP plastics are

 

OH YES. nice looking car, but a massive POS. my last American car.

 

^
Landshark,
I think you just officially derailed this thread. ;O

******

Don't feel bad, I owned a Buick Regal and a Buick Century before (it was a handmedown, but still.)
That was the last straw for me... I never gone back to an American car after that.

 

ok, enough cheap plastic talk - gives me the shivers just thinking about that old rattlebox.

 

Little wonder that Cadillacs have some of the highest first year depreciation rates, (around 30% IIRC), eh?

 

Actually, it's a combination of extreme high markup, cheap/weak plastics, and their OLD "Fuddy Duddly drivers"-imagine they just can't shake off.

Take a look at your up front costs - (for their entry level vehicle) > CTS, base model starts at $47,335 sticker**. That's with a punny 2.0L turbo.

Add a just a few options and you jump to $53,420 and that's still with the 2.0L turbo

If you want to get a V6, you need to cough up ~$56,000.

And, if you're an old-school type of guy and want that traditional V8... well, better pull down your pants and bend over, cause the MSRP just shot up to $92,630

(Don't even bother thinking about the CTS-V model...) You'd probably get a really nice used Lambo at the same price of a new V-Caddy.



** Come on!.. What young person will shell out that much for a entry level 4 banger?

 

Drove the wifes "Outlander" to work today. On the way home I noticed that the MPG's (after resetting the read out) were 27.... Makes me wonder about the newer Big O model now. argh....
This is so confusing now.....
I new the 2.4 Outlander was doing better mpg's that the OS we used to have, so maybe, just maybe I'll look into one of them before I make my mind up.
(hers has the SUPER AWC and 2.4 w/ CVT. Nice and roomy too)

 

Some of the larger vehicles get shockingly great mileage. For instance, our MUCH larger new Pathfinder can do 8.2-8.6l/100 on the highway and the RVR is not that much better. Not really sure why that is. Aerodynamics maybe? That said, the RVR is half the price of the Pathfinder. What is the upcharge to go to an OS from the OS Sport?

 

The answer is simple. During cruising on the high way fuel is only needed to overcome the losses (rolling friction and air resistance, primarily). Air resistance is dependent upon the cross sectional area, the aerodynamic coefficient, the density of the air, and the sqare of the speed. Some of these parameters are the same (for legitimate comparison) while others are very close. No wonder that the high way consumptions are so close. The story is entirely different where one should accelerate a vehicle of much greater mass. This is where reviewers make a very dangerous recommendation: "Bigger vehicle not much worse fuel economy, go for it". If one uses the car mainly on long trips then this recommendation may hold. However, if one primarily uses the car in city driving, especially during rush hours to commute to and from work, the difference can be as much as 60% higher fuel consumption for the heavier vehicle.