szhosain wrote:Yeah, I agree! I liked my 91 Q better too. I traded it in in 1998 for the 95 Q I currently have, and regretted the decision. Although, after hearing all the scare stories about the guides and all that, I am not totally sure whether it was a bad decision. Regardless, it was just an interesting observation at Edmunds.
It's mostly a function of small sample size I think. One unhappy person has a big impact on a sample of five, but doesn't affect a sample of 500 very much.
Quote »All in all, I am starting to spend about $6-8k per year on it now, and beginning to wonder if it is worth it. My wife is next in line for a new car, so we are thinking of selling my Q (after I get some work done on brakes and suspension) and getting her a new Passat or Accord - or maybe a Volvo wagon. I will take her Acura 2.2 CL for now - till next year, when I get a new Q or G35 ... or 350Z perhaps.
Z [/quote]
I haven't had any problems with my 95 yet. My 93 was the best of both worlds since it was late enough to have the new guides, first gear start, and all the good stuff the 90-93 cars have compared to the 94-96 cars. In 4.5 years of ownership, I had to replace a water pump, and I had to get the AC fixed twice at a cost of about $1200 per occurence. Not that bad if you average it out over almost 5 years though. I tried to find another 93, but couldn't find an acceptable one.
I've actually been shopping around a little myself because trying to fit an infant, a toddler, 2 car seats, stroller(s), toys, diaper bag etc. into a sedan gets old. However, the undesireability of driving a minivan or minivan in denial (aka SUV) instead of a Q45 has kept me from actually getting one though. Some of them like the Acura MDX aren't that bad for an SUV, but "aren't that bad for an SUV" is a long way from a great sedan like a Q45.