Hardtop Convertibles

[memphislawyer]

I have a 2002 Toyota Solara, approaching 145,000 miles. Struts on the back are totally shot, seat belt will not retract automatically, oil leak on top, probably shocks, needs other repairs and a piece of the side door molding needs replaced. With a car that needs about $1500 or more in repairs probably in the next year, and worth about $4000, I am probably not going to put the money into it.

So, I am looking at hard top convertibles. Dont know anyone who owns one other than a Mercedes. I guess I could consider a used MB but realistically, the pricepoints on those are too high. I am considering one of the following: Infinity G37; BMW 328i; Volvo S70 and the Audi A4. Im not a big Audi fan and think they run more $$ for similarly equipped competing vehicle lines. Have not driven one yet, so I will keep an open mind. The Volvo will probably be my most price competitive. I found a 2007 with 19000 miles for $25k, and the 2007 BMW with 14,000 miles was $38K. I think the Volvo will be cheapest, then the Infinity, then the Audi then the BMW for what I am looking for, a 2008 late model (more later) or 2009 with 14,000 miles or so. The later in the year that the car went into service, the longer I have on the 3 year and mileage warranties, which gives me longer to make sure that all problems are fixed. I put on about 19,000 miles a year, so I at least get two full years of mileage warranty if I stick around 14,000, and if I go 2008, I need to make sure the car was put into service say after September so I dont run out of time warranty before I exceed the mileage.

I dont like two seaters as sometimes I may have a third passenger, and it also allows a little extra storage if we go out of town. My Solara was good on the road and yes, the hardtop will cut down on wind noise, but I think the lines look cleaner. BMW went with a 100 series rag top and heck, it is about what the cost of the 3 series sedan is, but, is not appointed as nice on the inside. I may consider it if I can't find something used, say 2009 model in the lines I am looking for with 14,000 miles or less and less than $35,000.

Anyone have a hard top or one of these cars more specifically? Any advice? PM me if you need to.

 

[Harp]

Search eBay Motors.
I found my '94 Jaguar XJS convertible last summer by searching reputable dealers and estate sale listings.
Of course, eBay Motors can become addictive....

Have you read the Court's Kivemba v Obama ruling?

 

[davestlouis]

I worked at a BMW,Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, Lexus, Land Rover, Infiniti, Cadillac, Smart dealership in the bodyshop for 4 years. My personal observation is that convertibles are prone to leaks, creaks and rattles, and issues with the top mechanisms. ASC designs many of the factory convertible systems, including Toyota's designs, and they tend to be no worse than any others.

I also don't like that convertibles tend to have structures with less torsional rigidity than their solid-roofed counterparts, which lead to funny handling and structural deformation in a heavy collision. Rollover protection is compromised as well. Having said all that, if you just MUST have a convertible, buy or lease them frequently, and dump them before the warranty ends...all power-actuated tops are prone to hydraulic leaks and other problems, and can cost goo-gobs to fix.

Have you considered having a convert as a "toy", and a sedan as a daily driver? You could pile up miles on the sedan and keep the convert pristine for Saturday afternoon...just a thought.

 

[Flivver]

It's interesting that the term "hardtop convertible" now means what we used to call a "retractable hardtop" like the '57-'59 Ford Skyliner.

The original useage of "hardtop convertible" was in 1949 to describe the new Buick Roadmaster Riviera, Olds 98 Holiday and Cadillac Coupe de Ville. These were convertible bodies with fixed steel roofs welded on. Frameless doors were used so when the windows were rolled down the center pillar disaoppeared. Overall, these cars had the sporty look of a convertible with the security of a fixed steel top.

By 1952, just about every brand of American car offered a two-door hardtop convertible bodystyle. But since nothing actually "converted", the "convertible" part of the name was dropped and this bodystyle became known simply as "hardtop".

Hardtops became the most popular bodystyle of the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid 1950s, 4-door hardtops and (believe it or not) hardtop station wagons were introduced. Hardtops disappeared in the early 1970s as tougher Federal rollover standards rendered them impractical.

Sorry to hi-jack this thread, but I thought a little background history would be of interest.

By the way, if you'd like to learn a little more on the '57 Ford Skyliner retractable hardtop, here's a cute ad on the subject with Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HL5TttgmzA&feature=related

And here's a Ford dealer training film on the '57 Skyliner that goes into more detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw0teZEWOKc&feature=related

 

[BellyTank]

Audis and Volvos are the best of the cars you mentioned.
BMWs and Mercedes are not what they used to be.
Japanese is always the best value for money, unless of course,
you don't want a Japanese car.

Audis age much better than any other car.
They are more expensive because they are actually better.
"Similarly equippped" means second best, or worse.


B
T

 

[memphislawyer]

Dave, I know that the ride is probably not as good with a convertible, but really, when car people talk about how a car handles this way, or brakes that way, it is lost on me. What they write does not translate very well for me, in that when they would talk about the flavor of oak in a wine, it was lost on me. Now if I sipped slowly and tried to pick out the oak, and concentrate, I might be able to find it in the wine. I drive 25 miles on a city highway to work and then back. Sometimes, in summer, top goes down and I am not in a rush to get home.

The Volvo, as I have read, has a 5 speed engine and I guess the ride would be more like a nice Sunday stroll. We had Volvos up until 2000 and then my wife got a 3 series BMW. The handling was a lot tighter, you could literally feel the instant feedback. THe engine was peppier. Her 2006 C series Benz is a lot more like the Volvo.

I am guessing that the Volvo would be the best deal, if you will, then the Infinity and then the BMW and last the Audi, since Audi produces far fewer convertibles in the 4 seater than their TT line.

I considered the EOS, but it is a smaller car and, well, I dont think I would be satisifed, I would feel like I 'settled' for that. And with leather not being standard, it can run the price up to just about what the 1 series BMW is.

I am not really considering Mercedes or Lexus. Lexus body styling has never really done it for me and seems like an Acura or Infinity in body styling but pricier. Mercedes price points are really going to be above my $35,000 arbitrary price limit. Heck, they have a new 2009 3 series for $45,000 (list is $52,000) and if they would take $40,000 i'd do that.

Audi probably will be out because, well, I don't think that they will have many coming off lease to consider.

Yeah, I worry about hydraulic repairs but really, I have never had a problem with the top on the Toyota Solara except that it did leak in a corner but the adjustment of the rubber there fixed that.

 

[D Yizz]

Dave, I know that the ride is probably not as good with a convertible, but really, when car people talk about how a car handles this way, or brakes that way, it is lost on me. What they write does not translate very well for me, in that when they would talk about the flavor of oak in a wine, it was lost on me. Now if I sipped slowly and tried to pick out the oak, and concentrate, I might be able to find it in the wine. I drive 25 miles on a city highway to work and then back. Sometimes, in summer, top goes down and I am not in a rush to get home.

The Volvo, as I have read, has a 5 speed engine and I guess the ride would be more like a nice Sunday stroll. We had Volvos up until 2000 and then my wife got a 3 series BMW. The handling was a lot tighter, you could literally feel the instant feedback. THe engine was peppier. Her 2006 C series Benz is a lot more like the Volvo.

I am guessing that the Volvo would be the best deal, if you will, then the Infinity and then the BMW and last the Audi, since Audi produces far fewer convertibles in the 4 seater than their TT line.

I considered the EOS, but it is a smaller car and, well, I dont think I would be satisifed, I would feel like I 'settled' for that. And with leather not being standard, it can run the price up to just about what the 1 series BMW is.

I am not really considering Mercedes or Lexus. Lexus body styling has never really done it for me and seems like an Acura or Infinity in body styling but pricier. Mercedes price points are really going to be above my $35,000 arbitrary price limit. Heck, they have a new 2009 3 series for $45,000 (list is $52,000) and if they would take $40,000 i'd do that.

Audi probably will be out because, well, I don't think that they will have many coming off lease to consider.

Yeah, I worry about hydraulic repairs but really, I have never had a problem with the top on the Toyota Solara except that it did leak in a corner but the adjustment of the rubber there fixed that.

I am probably partialized in my opinion, since I am an Infiniti owner myself (2003 G35 coupe, manual transmission, of course) but I think the best buy in that lot is the G37. It is a genuine coupe, with power in the correct axle and packs the perfect balance between sportiness, luxury and civility. The Volvo is a fairly reliable machine, but I have my doubts as to the sportiness/fun factor. In the end, if you're looking into a convertible, you must be the kind of person who enjoys driving. I'm not sure the Volvo will give you that kind of experience and would probably feel like those rental Sebring convertibles you see in tourist areas. BTW, Sebrings are available as HTCs too. You can also check out the Audi A5, which is a convertible with glass rear window.

 

[memphislawyer]

D Yizz: You nailed it. I do not think the Volvo would be fun and yes, would be like driving the Seabring, and also my Solara. The BMW at least is a nimble car, kinda like having a dog straining at its leash to run ahead of its master, whereas the Volvo and Solara are like dogs that heel. The EOS by VW seems to be too high priced to compete truly with those I am looking at, as it should compete with the Seabring.

I dont like driving per se, but when we went to Miami about 10 years ago, I had a convertible and driving between West Palm Beach and South Beach, we had the top down. It was enjoyable. When we go to Destin, Florida, it is so nice to have the top down when we go to dinner and then just amble back to the condo or to shop. Same way with weekends and then nights when I get off work and unloosen the tie and head home from work.

But I dont need a performance tiger, and going to a 335 is not going to make a difference - give me the 328 then and let me save some money. It is more the look, how it makes me feel, and as others tell me, does it smile at me, or make me smile?

Someone said look at a used Lexus 430, or a new I250 convertible, but the former does not make me smile, and the latter, well, it looks like it could be an Acura or Honda except for the pricetag. My wife found locally a MB SLK280 with 7000 miles and one owner, a 2006 model, for $29,000, but it is a two seater and they say the cupholders suck. I hate driving her car, a 2006 C car, on long trips because the seats are not all that comfy. Id prefer a four seater so I at least have a back seat for spillover luggage.

 

[davestlouis]

SLKs are tiny inside...if you're more than 6 feet tall the seats don't slide back far enough to give you ample leg room. My personal take, prior to the recent Toyota recall debacle, was that the German manufacturers tried to "out electronic" the Japanese since the mid-90s, and have wound up making German cars less reliable and bulletproof than they used to be. If you're more of a cruiser than a speed-demon, buy whichever one has comfy seats and fits your budget...call your insurance agent too and make sure the one you choose isn't in some goofy rating that would make it expensive to insure.

 

[memphislawyer]

Thanks all. I am inclined, not being a speed demon, to just go see them and see which one makes me feel good. So far, I tend to like the look of the BMW first, then the Infinity, then the Lexus. Im not all that thrilled about the Volvo, but it would probably be cheapest, and the Audi would be a lot of money.

 

[memphislawyer]

Well, talked to my mechanic. He used to be the head manager at a facility that had multi-lines, like Jag, Range Rover and he also worked at a Volvo dealership. He told me that with the new line of Lexus, they ride great, but after 100,000 miles, they are the most expensive to fix and everything is electronic and modules need replacing at $1500 each. Said the Volvo almost costs as much to fix, which I would not think would be the case, but the ride is unexceptional. Audis are great cars but his experience is that electronics are going out at 70,000 miles and the local dealership rapes the customer. Most of his clients with them are trading off when the warranty expires.

He has fixed our 2000 BMW and my Solara and says I would like the Infinity for the ride and also the BMW, either the 3 series or the 1 series. Ill go test drive the Infinity today at lunch, but I do like how the BMW looks the best. He says that being an independent shop, he sees all makes and BMWs actually are quite reliable. He knows an independent broker that he checks out all the cars and this guy will shop around auctions and look for me what I want - a one or two year old model, in a white, darker silver/grey or platinum color, with 15,000 miles or so. This gives me 35,000 more in warranty and hopefully two years or so and my mechanic will check it out, and I will come in under $35,000.

 

[BellyTank]

BTW-
BMWs and Range Rovers are among the top 5 of cars you see broken down
on the side of the road, or behind a tow truck.

"Premium" cars should not be in that top 5.


B
T

 

[Flivver]

Unfortunately, premium cars have more complex mechanical and electronic systems than mainstream cars and thus tend to be less reliable and more costly to repair. All that nifty feature content comes at a price.

 

[memphislawyer]

Well, I think I am going to go testdrive this one today and offer $3000 less than what he listed it for

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...smission=&max_price=&cardist=0&standard=false

 

[memphislawyer]

D Yizz: I test drove the Q37 yesterday and loved it, absolutely loved it. Great cup holders, the back up camera is neat, integrated blue tooth and ipod and nav system. They had a stripped model for $44,000 (and still comes better equipped than you might imagine for stripped) and might take $40k for a 2009, but I had not planned for that much. The G37 convertible was new in 2009 and really was only out 6 months, from September on. BMW brings out their 2011 in 3 months I was told last night. The car was black, but he has my card and if they can give me the white one that had nav system for $42,000, I might get that one.

 

[davestlouis]

I'm faintly amused at the notion of a "stipped" model of anything for $44K. Makes me nauseous thinking about the depreciation hit that one takes on a new car. There is something to be said for that new car smell. Waiting for that first door ding is no kind of fun though

Whatever you buy, just make sure you use some leather conditioner on the seats periodically, especially if you drive with the top down and the sun cooking the hides.

 

[TomS]

Although I suspect you might have already decided to buy another car, I might reconsider keeping the Toyota. Aside form the recent bad press the company has received, they are well built vehicles.

I'm friendly with a service manager at a local dealership, and it is not uncommon for them to see a car with a couple of hundred thousand miles on it roll in for an oil change. I'd bet if you had a dealership go through your Solara you'd get another few years out of it.

Good luck anyway you go...
TomS

 

[D Yizz]

D Yizz: I test drove the Q37 yesterday and loved it, absolutely loved it. Great cup holders, the back up camera is neat, integrated blue tooth and ipod and nav system. They had a stripped model for $44,000 (and still comes better equipped than you might imagine for stripped) and might take $40k for a 2009, but I had not planned for that much. The G37 convertible was new in 2009 and really was only out 6 months, from September on. BMW brings out their 2011 in 3 months I was told last night. The car was black, but he has my card and if they can give me the white one that had nav system for $42,000, I might get that one.

I'm glad you liked it. I've had mine since '04 and still smile everytime I see it freshly washed and find myself looking back at it when I park it. I also love the exhaust note, be it cruising or at wot in the highway. As you can imagine, when the time arrives, I'm looking forward to replace it with a G37.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

It's interesting that the term "hardtop convertible" now means what we used to call a "retractable hardtop" like the '57-'59 Ford Skyliner.

The original useage of "hardtop convertible" was in 1949 to describe the new Buick Roadmaster Riviera, Olds 98 Holiday and Cadillac Coupe de Ville. These were convertible bodies with fixed steel roofs welded on. Frameless doors were used so when the windows were rolled down the center pillar disaoppeared. Overall, these cars had the sporty look of a convertible with the security of a fixed steel top.

By 1952, just about every brand of American car offered a two-door hardtop convertible bodystyle. But since nothing actually "converted", the "convertible" part of the name was dropped and this bodystyle became known simply as "hardtop".

Hardtops became the most popular bodystyle of the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid 1950s, 4-door hardtops and (believe it or not) hardtop station wagons were introduced. Hardtops disappeared in the early 1970s as tougher Federal rollover standards rendered them impractical.

Sorry to hi-jack this thread, but I thought a little background history would be of interest.

By the way, if you'd like to learn a little more on the '57 Ford Skyliner retractable hardtop, here's a cute ad on the subject with Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HL5TttgmzA&feature=related

And here's a Ford dealer training film on the '57 Skyliner that goes into more detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw0teZEWOKc&feature=related

Wonderful testimonial, Flivver. The Fairlane hardtop convertibles have always been favorites of mine, but I'm going to take this discussion a little further back in time and remind everyone of the first convertible hardtops, the Peugeot Eclipses. To Wit:


The 1934 Peugeot 601 C Eclipse:

and the 1935 Peugeot 402 Eclipse:

Beautiful cars! (Photos from Wikipedia.)


Lee

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Unfortunately, premium cars have more complex mechanical and electronic systems than mainstream cars and thus tend to be less reliable and more costly to repair. All that nifty feature content comes at a price.

Exactly the reason my father always bought the lowest-optioned cars he could. As he'd say, "The more options it has, the more there is that can go wrong."


Lee