I guess it really depends on how much you trust who's doing it, and how much of the car is actually new. If they are hanging new sheet metal on a proven design, if would probably be a safer bet than an entirely new design. Of course entirely new designs are rarer than hen's teeth.

I think you should wait until she's at least 18.

You should have read (here) the expression "Horsepower per liter". That is the very first number to obtain. It tends to say how long the car will last, how durable the interior, how long the tires will last, and how few times it must go into the shop.

To do same as a four cylinder Toyota, GM had to build six cylinder cars. GM would not let engineers design. Therefore Hp/liter identified GM cars as the world's worst even 30 years ago.

A minimum standard for fuel injection is 70 Hp/liter. Any car that does less than that means he should pay you to take the car. Go to Consumer Report to do that arithmetic. Many automakers that made crap would not put both numbers on the sales sticker. They fear you might do the arithmetic - might be informed. The first indicator that a car may be crap - the sticker does not have both Horsepower and Liters.

SUVs typically have the crappiest engines. Do the HP/liter number to appreciate why V-8s still exist. SUV is the excuse to put low technology (1968 designed) engines in a vehicle and hype it as 'cool'. Hp/liter quickly identifies shittiest products.

Minimum for fuel injection is 70. Minimum for turbo charged is 85. Minimum for super charged is 100. GM - the world's most anti-American cars - once sold supercharged engines that were only 65 Hp/liter. Why? They are selling to people who only do what propaganda tells them to believe. Who also knew Saddam had WMDs. It's supercharged. Therefore it must be high performance? No. It is 65 Hp/liter. Therefore the Toyota Tercel even has higher performance.

Honda's S2000 is a performance champion with only a 2 Liter 4 cylinder engine. Its 120 Horsepower per liter engine means those 2 liters do more than a 5 liter V-8 Mustang. But then Mustangs and Camaros often got crappy low performance engines. They were being marketed to people who could even knew Saddam had WMDs. Who are most easily brainwashed.

Another indicator is noise. Patriotic, reliable, longer lasting, high tech cars make less noise. More noise from the engine means it is crap, has less horsepower, consumes more fuel, etc. How can you tell a Lexus is highest performance? It sneaks up behind you and you do not hear it. Lexus is so quiet due to its Hp/liter numbers - typically 83 for fuel injection.

Again, if a vehicle has a V-8, it is the automaker dumping on you the world's crappiest car. What GM did with V-8s, Toyota did same horsepower with V-6s.

Alan Mullay made an interesting comment last month in a meeting. Ford will have four cylinder options for every vehicle. Why? Today's four cylinder engines do what a 1975 big block V-8 did. To have same horsepower (and therefore have a faster car), today buy a four cylinder, 70+ Hp/liter engine. Mullay's statement says that in only ten years (because Ford engineers have only been designing again for 10 years), Ford will probably have replaced every anti-American crap engine with a 70 horsepower per liter version.

GM might have started that program now that Obama saved GM by firing Wagoner. Marchionne would be trying to do same in Chrysler. Now that the world has had that technology (developed in GM in 1975) for so long. 70 Hp/liter engines became the standard from only patriotic automakers starting about 1992.

Did you eyes glaze over with the numbers yet. Then you need to stop and read this again from the top. Every number (even 1992) is useful information for a 2010 car purchase.

Few cars need a V-6. No cars or light trucks need a V-8. Those engines exist so that they can sell a 1968 crap at 2010 prices. So that the most ignorant car buyers can spend more for crappier products and have higher profit margins. For all but vehicles designed to do towing, a minimally standard 4 cylinder engine is more than sufficient.

BTW, what is being discussed for the next generation Indy style racers for post 2012? Six cylinders. So that cars can have the same or more horsepower, be better designed, and do what has always been the mantra for any American patriot. Do more with less.

Gasoline mileage. Which cars will obtain and exceed EPA highway mileage numbers? Those with a high Hp/liter number. GM cars rarely obtained those mileage numbers because their products were doing only high 40's (Tahoe, Suburban, Silverado, Hummer), 52 (older sedans), and various levels of 60s (numbers when Rick Wagoner ruled). When GM was only doing 52 horsepower per liter in all cars, all Honda's and Toyotas were already doing 70.

The deceived have been brainwashed with nonsense such as torque. How to get a car with a higher torque? Downshift. Or change transmission gears so that first gear is even lower. Torque is bullshit used to promote V-8 engines to fools. GM needed you to believe that myth so that you will continue to buy the world's crappiest (1968 technology) engines. So that GM would not spend money on engineering. Torque is nonsense. Your first number in any auto purchase is 'Horsepower per liter'.

Cars that have more than 4 cylinders are often using crap technology. Or have more horsepower than a 1975 biggest block V-8 car. Nobody needs a car with that much horsepower.

The 4 cylinder engines of today match the hp of the V-8s of 1975, because they are controlled by a shitload of computers that all have to work together, as Cloud has already discovered.

They are simpler. Have less parts. Are machined to tenth of a thousandths of inch. Do not use crappy carburetors. Replaced mechanical advance and retard with electronics. Etc.

Cloud's problem were traceable to one not using his brain. A simple system - only one computer, wire and connectors, and a valve. Only three items. A perfectly good computer was replaced four times. Never once replaced the part that was probably sticking - the valve. Did so because failures are mostly traceable to human failure. A mechanic did shotgunning rather than use his brain.

Fixing cars today is so much easier than it was in the 1960s. Back then we would just keep replacing parts until something worked. Today, that computer error code quickly identified failure only traceable to one of three parts. And still that mechanic could not bother to replace a most likely suspect.

Friends kept having a glowing check engine light on a Honda. The mechanic said to ignore it - that was normal. Therefore he was lying. Eventually, they got stuck - had to be towed. Squirrels had eaten through fuel injection wires. Were using the engine as a warm sleeping area. The mechanic could not even bother to see messed up wires all over the top of the engine? Even the computer told him where a problem was. And he still could not see it. Humans are often the most common reason for failures.

Yeah, I had a friend trade in a year old Ford pickup because squirrels did $2,000 damage to the wiring harness. That didn't happen on 1975 pickups.

When the mechanic opened the hood on the 1957 Lincoln, all that remained was an orange cat tail. Repairs were expensive.

Yeah, I agree with Bruce on this, it's not completely black/white.
My Commander (XK) is a first year model, and I've definitely had more issues with it than my previous 2 Jeeps (WK and XJ) that it was designed from. BUT it is also more awesome than both those Jeeps in several ways. And later model year XKs were cheapened up a bit.

My biggest issue is the lack of a good Chrysler dealership service dept. around here.

I vote yea for new year's models in Nissan. The ex bought the first year of a new design of Altimas in 1994, and the car had a perfect repair record in almost every way* for a decade. The Cellar car is the first year of a fresh design for Maximas, and it is still an awesome vehicle at 175K miles.

* The interior heating/cooling fan developed a tiny noise. That is literally all that ever went wrong.

I'll take a Juke for a demo when they come out, cloud. I'll let you know how i like it.

Okay, there's some good and useful stuff to go through here. TW, I "heart" your taking the time to respond so thoroughly, but I'm just going to ignore the political comments, 'kay?

My check engine light is still on, btw. :(

thanks. May be too small for me, but that's coming trend, isn't it?

I can't speak for you, but being too small for me is definitely the trend.:blush:

I looked at the Nissan Juke, and all I have to say is YUK!!!

Well, you're not alone. The automotive press is very unkind to anything strange and unusual.

"But I, myself, am strange and unusual."