Looking to Buy New/near New SUV or Sedan for Parents Budget $60-70k

Hi All,

I am looking to buy my parents a new car as a gift and seeking suggestions.
As suggested below, they will be invovled in the final selection process. Probably looking to shortlist down to 5 models brand combination. Then have them pick.

They have always wanted a luxury car of the below brands:

Merc
BMW
Lexus
Audi

They are not "car people", that is they don't really care about acceleration, handling, tech ect.

All they care is
The badge
SUV or large sedan
Some nice interior trim
Brand new/Demo

Budget below 70k

They will probably own the car for 5-6 yr then sell it off, depreciation probably won't be their concern as it is a gift.

Why am i doing this, you may ask?
Well my parents have saved vigorously all their life to send me to private schools and give me the best chance to succeed.
Now I have got some money, I would like to buy them something nice.
They've been talking about buying a entry level luxury car for a while now, but unless I buy it for them I doubt their frugal mentality would allow them to do so.

Comments

  • +56 votes

    Get them involved, make sure they're comfortable with the seating, and driving the car as well

    Or pretend it's you who's looking for a new car, and take them with you, and get their opinions. When you buy it (without them there), get them into the showroom to see your new car, then bam! Do the switcheroo on them

  • +5 votes

    It's OzB… I'm waiting for someone to recommend the Lexus Camry to the OP.. haha

    • +15 votes

      I'm waiting for someone to suggest increasing the budget by $10K for a high yield investment vehicle.

  • +4 votes

    Audi Q5 diesel. Lexus will be more reliable though.

    • +1 vote

      Any Lexus models you would recommend ?

      • +12 votes

        Just buy a Lexus NX300h.

        ONce you go hybrid, you'll be happy. The Toyota V6 3.5L or 2.0 L Hybrid is far more reliable, fuel efficient and enjoyable to listen to than the stupid 3.0 L turbocharged diesels and petrol engines from Audi and Merc. I have no idea why mums and dads wants to ferry their kids around in turbocharged vehicles.

        • -1 vote

          Nothing wrong with a turbo diesel at all. A hybrid Lexus would be a good choice though.

          • +1 vote

            @brendanm:

            Nothing wrong with a turbo diesel

            Not a fan of tractor sounding engines

            • +3 votes

              @Numlock: Ok, you'll obviously never driven a modern turbo diesel. That's fine, probably best not to comment on them though.

              • -1 vote

                @brendanm:

                modern turbo diesel.

                They've been around for decades. Car engine technology is not new.

                • +1 vote

                  @Numlock: Ok cool. As I said, you've obviously never driven a modern turbo diesel, and that's fine.

                  • -2 votes

                    @brendanm: Test drove a silver 2019 GLC 350D coupe in Alexandria. Family member owns a 3.0 L Mercedes turbo diesel too. Driven it many times to Canberra from Sydney.
                    Not a fan of the truck-like sound, the lack of sustained torque at higher speeds, and just the general cancer causing crap that comes out the end of it. I do urban driving not cross country.

                    • +1 vote

                      @Numlock: “aLL DiEsELs SoUnD LiKe FaRm TrAcToRz!!!1!1!!1!”

                      Lol @ lack of sustained torque… you are still talking about Diesel engines, yeah?

                      Using your silly analogy, the 3.0 petrol Twin Turbo GLC makes 520Nm @ 4500RPM, the 3.0 single turbo diesel variant makes 620Nm @ 2400.

                      • -3 votes

                        @pegaxs:

                        Using your silly analogy, the 3.0 petrol Twin Turbo GLC makes 520Nm @ 4500RPM, the 3.0 single turbo diesel variant makes 620Nm @ 2400.

                        The torque may be higher (common in diesel engines due to the larger volume being compressed by the pistons) but the diesel cannot translate that torque to higher engine speeds due to the longer stroke length. A petrol engine can rotate the crankshaft faster because the pistons move faster per second (RPM) creating a higher engine speed. DOesn't matter how much torque you have. If a car can rotate the crank faster (i.e. petrol engines), then you've essentially lost the race. If a diesel tries to reach higher RPM like a petrol engine, then the brake horse power rapidly falls off and higher engine speeds take longer to reach.

                        The GLC Twin Turbo Petrol Engine by AMG beats any diesel any day regardless of the torque figures. I'll keep my turbocharged petrol engine over your soccer mum turbocharged diesel engine.

                        • +3 votes

                          @Numlock:

                          common in diesel engines due to the larger volume being compressed by the pistons

                          What? I compared a 3.0l petrol to a 3.0l diesel. It's the same volume being compressed.

                          but the diesel cannot translate that torque to higher engine speeds due to the longer stroke length

                          They what now? Stroke length has little to nothing to do with it. The stroke on a 3.0l petrol and a 3.0l diesel would be very similar.

                          A petrol engine can rotate the crankshaft faster because the pistons move faster per second

                          HAHAHAHA… Now I've heard it all. That's not even a thing. This is going on the noticeboard at work.

                          DOesn't matter how much torque you have.

                          LOL. You do know that "power" is a factor of TORQUE x RPM / 5252 (in HP and lb/ft). It absolutely matters how much torque you have. (I would expect an "engineer" to know this)

                          If a car can rotate the crank faster (i.e. petrol engines), then you've essentially lost the race.

                          Not if it produces no torque. ie: My motorcycle revs to well up near 10,000+ RPM, but is no good at pulling a horse float.

                          If a diesel tries to reach higher RPM like a petrol engine

                          Diesel doesn't need to "reach high RPM" as all of its work is done down low.

                          brake horse power

                          Do you even know what this means?

                          I'll keep my turbocharged petrol engine over your soccer mum turbocharged diesel engine

                          Well, when I pass you going up a hill and my engine barely changes note and you have had to go back 3 gears and pinged your petrol off it's tits just to keep up, I'll be thinking of you burning twice the amount of fuel I am and still not being able to keep up.

                          I don't even know why my Kenworth has a diesel engine in it now. Trucks should just run petrol engines…

                          This thing here is, I am a diesel mechanic by trade (for some 25+ years now). You, on the other hand, are not :) and as a possible engineer I would expect you to know better about how diesels work… Unless you're one of those "worthless" engineers that took a word like "data" or "bio" and added the word "engineer" to the end of it to make it sound like you know something.

                          • -3 votes

                            @pegaxs:

                            What? I compared a 3.0l petrol to a 3.0l diesel. It's the same volume being compressed.

                            Yes, there's probably a better way to word that. Diesels compress the volume more than a petrol engine does so we end up with less volume in a diesel's cylinder after the piston compresses the air.

                            The stroke on a 3.0l petrol and a 3.0l diesel would be very similar

                            That's incorrect. A diesel will need a longer stroke length to achieve the higher compression and the fact that the air requires longer to ignite because there's no fuel yet. A common example would be the Audi V6 Turbo petrol engine used in the SQ5 and a V6 Turbo diesel in the GLC350D. I think the compression ratio difference is around 8.

                            HAHAHAHA… Now I've heard it all. That's not even a thing. This is going on the noticeboard at work.

                            Actually, the crankshaft does rotate faster in a petrol engine. Diesels have to withstand higher cylinder pressures because of the longer stroke so these engines have heavier pistons, connecting rods and crank shafts to withstand the internal stresses and torsion. These heavier parts limit RPM and overall engine power.

                            LOL. You do know that "power" is a factor of TORQUE x RPM / 5252 (in HP and lb/ft). It absolutely matters how much torque you have. (I would expect an "engineer" to know this)

                            OF course torque matters but higher torques in a diesel does not produce more engine power or speed. The ignition takes longer and has a lower revolution engine. When you look at overall engine speed, the mathematical relationship is proportional to RPM and torque. Higher revs in a petrol engine is in the order of thousands whereas torque is not in automotive engines.

                            Not if it produces no torque. ie: My motorcycle revs to well up near 10,000+ RPM, but is no good at pulling a horse float

                            The OP is not buying a vehicle to pull a horse float. It's an SUV for an elderly couple.

                            Diesel doesn't need to "reach high RPM" as all of its work is done down low.

                            Don't selectively quote me and respond to half of my sentence. It's a poor and dishonest practice. Read my whole sentence.

                            Do you even know what this means?

                            Yes, the horsepower (or Brake horsepower for cars) is a unit of measurement of to measure power. In a car's case, using a dynamometer to measure rotational speed and torque at a certain area of the engine while braking is applied.

                            I'll be thinking of you burning twice the amount of fuel I am and still not being able to keep up.

                            I don't know of any hills a turbocharged diesel will beat a turbocharged petrol engine in my urban area.

                            Trucks should just run petrol engines

                            That would be unwise for moving heavier loads like a truck.

                            This thing here is, I am a diesel mechanic by trade (for some 25+ years now).

                            That's so cute. I'm not the type to get my hands dirty. I wear a collared shirt to work.
                            I use to design cranks and connecting rods for large automakers. In fact, that was my first task at university more than a decade ago. To design a certain type of connecting rod. Also did a lot of Finite element analysis models for various engines still used today, computational fluid dynamics for air and fuel intake valves. Worked with performance engineers to optimise torque, horsepower, thermal efficiency, ignition timings, fuel economy. List goes on. I don't do it anymore, though. I work in mathematical modelling, data science and machine learning now. I got bored of engines. I am into autonomous driving with electric vehicles. Hard industry to get into atm. I'm working on building my skills.

                            Unless you're one of those "worthless" engineers that took a word like "data" or "bio" and added the word "engineer" to the end of it to make it sound like you know something.

                            What does that even mean? Data Engineers build the environment and infrastructure for people to analyse massive data sets. One of the most important jobs in the 21st century.
                            Bioengineers (not a common term) or Biomedical engineers are responsible for creating health solutions to people with disabilities and illnesses. You've just insulted the two fastest growing fields in engineering.

                            • +1 vote

                              @Numlock:

                              The OP is not buying a vehicle to pull a horse float. It's an SUV for an elderly couple.

                              So in other words, something that makes nice low down torque and doesn't need to rev to the moon would be better.

                            •  

                              @Numlock:

                              Diesels compress the volume more than a petrol engine does

                              That's not what you said initially.

                              so we end up with less volume in a diesel's cylinder

                              No you don't. It's still 3 litres, it's just compressed more. You really have not thought this out, have you?

                              That's incorrect. A diesel will need a longer stroke length to achieve the higher compression

                              That's incorrect. Volume and stroke depends on the diameter of the piston. 3 litre petrol engines don't all have the same stroke. And the increase in torque in a diesel over a petrol has very little to do with the length of the stroke.

                              the air requires longer to ignite because there's no fuel yet.

                              Go on… how does one "ignite air" without fuel?

                              Actually, the crankshaft does rotate faster in a petrol engine.

                              No it doesn't. 2,000 RPM in a petrol is still the same 2,000 RPM in a diesel. OR is that the pistons moving "faster per second". What I think you are trying to say is that petrols have a higher rev limit. Which is true, but they need it, because, remember the "power" equation I posted before. If you lack TORQUE, you need to INCREASE rpm to gain any more power.

                              OF course torque matters but higher torques in a diesel does not produce more engine power or speed.

                              It doesn't need to. Cars work on torque. HP is just a measure of torque over time. Torque is the ability of the engine to do the work (Force). HP is a measure of how much work it can do over time (Force x Time).

                              whereas torque is not in automotive engines.

                              Dafuq did I just read? All an engine does is "produce torque" (as well as heat and pollution). But keep going, the guys at work are loving this.

                              Don't selectively quote me
                              "If a diesel tries to reach higher RPM like a petrol engine, then the brake horse power rapidly falls off and higher engine speeds take longer to reach."

                              Ok, because you want me to embarrass the whole sentence and not just the valid part.

                              If a diesel tries to reach higher RPM like a petrol engine

                              Diesels don't need to reach high RPM because all of their torque is produced low in the rev range. There is no gain from revving the buh-jesus out of a diesel.

                              then the brake horse power rapidly falls off

                              As for "brake HP", diesels have a very flat HP curve, so it doesn't "rapidly fall off". As RPM increases, torque drops off slowly. The increase in RPM (in "that" equation) offsets the drop in torque, so you get a relatively consistent, flat dyno HP response. The difference is, as a diesel is loaded up and RPM starts to drop, the diesel engine starts to produce an increase in torque. Petrol engines do the opposite. As RPM falls away on a petrol engine, torque begins to suffer. So, from that equation I posted before, you are losing rpm AND torque as a petrol engine loads up and slows down.

                              higher engine speeds take longer to reach.

                              And again, diesels don't "need" higher RPM.

                              (or Brake horsepower for cars)

                              Brake HP isn't just a "car" related thing. What it relates to is where/how the HP was measured. Horsepower is measured at either the flywheel with no accessories or at the wheels with all accessories. So, I'll take that as a "No" you didn't know what "brake" HP meant. At least you knew it was a measurement of power.

                              while braking is applied.

                              LOL. Ok, Champ. Hand brake or foot brake?

                              That would be unwise for moving heavier loads like a truck.

                              If petrol engines have "moar powah, baby", why are they not used in trucks?

                              I'm not the type to get my hands dirty.

                              I can tell :D Or study about a subject either before you comment on it.

                              I wear a collared shirt to work.

                              So do I. We should hang out somewhere that requires collared shirts to enter…

                              I use to design cranks and connecting rods for large automakers

                              No you didn't. If you did, you would know more about engines. And the rest of the "proving" yourself is an absolute ream of bullshit in epic proportions. No one who designs "cranks and connecting rods" would be as clueless as you are about how diesel and petrol engines work compared to each other.

                              I work in mathematical modelling, data science and machine learning now

                              Oh, so your one of "those" engineers…

                              •  

                                @pegaxs:

                                That's not what you said initially.

                                True.

                                No you don't. It's still 3 litres, it's just compressed more. You really have not thought this out, have you?

                                And this is where your small brain keeps you at the technician level. Volume decreases as a compressive force exerts pressure. See Boyle's law or Ideal gas law.

                                No it doesn't. 2,000 RPM in a petrol is still the same 2,000 RPM in a diesel. OR is that the pistons moving "faster per second". What I think you are trying to say is that petrols have a higher rev limit.

                                ARe you seriously telling me 2000 RPM = 2000 RPM everywhere? Thanks, I understood that as a child. So cranks do rotate faster in petrol engines, which is why you can reach higher engine speeds.

                                Ok, because you want me to embarrass the whole sentence and not just the valid part.

                                Seems like you selectively quote people a lot. The whole point of an 'if' statement is to provide a scenario and then an explanation after the comma. Back to school, old man.

                                Diesels don't need to reach high RPM because all of their torque is produced low in the rev range. There is no gain from revving the buh-jesus out of a diesel.

                                Yes. Correct.

                                So, I'll take that as a "No" you didn't know what "brake" HP meant. At least you knew it was a measurement of power.

                                My statement is correct. A braking force is applied via a Prony brake.

                                LOL. Ok, Champ. Hand brake or foot brake?

                                Prony brake or torque regulator in newer dynamos.

                                If petrol engines have "moar powah, baby", why are they not used in trucks?

                                When power-to-weight ratio is important, petrol is better. That is why gasoline engines were designed, for bikes and aircraft. Diesel engines were built to rival the steam engine to carry heavy loads.

                                More torque = more muscle to carry the load
                                More Revs = faster engine speed assuming you're not hauling cement.

                                I can tell :D Or study about a subject either before you comment on it.

                                Sorry, but you are incorrect in so many situations as your English is not clear.

                                No you didn't. If you did, you would know more about engines. And the rest of the "proving" yourself is an absolute ream of bullshit in epic proportions. No one who designs "cranks and connecting rods" would be as clueless as you are about how diesel and petrol engines work compared to each other.

                                I have an engineering degree from Sydney University. Happy to show you around the mechanical engineering building and my professors.

                                Oh, so your one of "those" engineers…

                                Yes, I get more money $$$. ;)
                                As much as I hate talking about engines, this has been educational. I find nothing more enjoyable than driving a corolla hybrid around the cramped inner parts of sydney.

                                • -3 votes

                                  @Numlock: Well said! Bravo!Good to see somebody who actually knows what hey are talking about.Rather than somebody who thinks they do.👍👍👍

                                  •  

                                    @Hackney: LOL… so much butt hurt, Hackney. Still following me around to make silly comments and neg my replies? (Remember, you only get 5 a day, so come back tomorrow when you have some more, ok?)

                                    All I have to say to you is, back in your box old mate. You're well out of your depth here. Let the adults talk for a while, ok?

                                •  

                                  @Numlock:

                                  this is where your small brain keeps you at the technician level

                                  "iM aN EnGiNeeR." No your not. You have a job with the word "engineer" tacked onto it. So, who to trust, a guy with over 25 years of hands on experience with engines, or a "data" engineer… (nice ad hominem fallacy there. Or was it a personal insult?)

                                  You see, unlike you, I like getting my hands dirty. I am more like a surgeon and you're more like a "biology teacher". I actually get in and rip things apart, inspect them, fix them, reassemble them and test them daily. You sit in an office/classroom and tell people what you think it should look like inside, but haven't really seen what it actually looks like "for realsies". I'm a technician because I LOVE it, not because that's all I can do.

                                  See Boyle's law or Ideal gas law

                                  You really shouldn't just Google and then post random shit you find. You didn't mention Pascal's principle or Charles Law?.

                                  Back to school, old man.

                                  Derogatory remarks. Nice. Don't attempt to present your case, just go all off on some ad hominem rampage.

                                  dynamos

                                  Or did you mean "Dyno" or "Dynamometer"?? It's a measuring instrument, so it needs to be a "meter" (as opposed to a metre, which is a measurement of the amount of misinformation you are offering up.) Most "dynamos" used for measuring HP these days use water or electric currents as the "brake". But you would know that, being an "engineer". I have my doubts if you have even seen a dyno in person, let alone operated one.

                                  Prony brake

                                  Did you just Google that? You did just Googled that. Well, back in the early 1800's, yes, that was one ways of testing horsepower. So, well done on being super relevant and being up to date with your knowledge Googling.

                                  More torque = more muscle to carry the load

                                  Wow, you actually got something (sort of) right.

                                  More Revs

                                  More revs is a measurement of time/duration, not an expression of work done. An equivalent diesel engine in size to a petrol has more "force" or "torque" (ability to overcome load). RPM is just measure of time. ie: revolutions per "minute" (time). (But, as an "engineer", you would know that.)

                                  Sorry, but you are incorrect in so many situations

                                  But not this one. Sorry, I'm not taking the wisdom of a data/bio/art/chem/management "engineer" (with a bad grasp of how to research on Google) over my own extensive hands on experience.

                                  Happy to show you around the mechanical engineering building

                                  Don't need to. I spend a great deal of my time in "actual" engineering workshops and I have attended the UTS mechanical engineering section quite a bit on my own, but thanks for the offer.

                                  I have an engineering degree from Sydney University

                                  University of Sydney or University of Technology Sydney (UTS)? (Would expect someone who attended to know the correct name, that's all.) And of course you do. And I bet it's a very valid degree with respect to "engine design" and not one of those *random_word* + "Engineer" type of degrees.

                                  Anyway, the point is, you are wrong about how diesel engines work and I cant converse with someone who lacks so much knowledge and at the same time is so stubborn to the point of ignorance. You change your story, you change your goal posts, you quote irrelevant information and wrongly attribute it to what you don't know about.

                                  Your lack of basic understanding of the principles that differentiate petrol and diesel engines is laughable at best. On top of all this, the only way you can try to discredit what I am saying is by personal insults and regurgitating words you found on Google when you don't even know what they mean.

                                  Anyway, thanks for the laughs. Your replies have made it onto the break room table and have been the source of many a belly laugh at your expense. So, we thank you for that.

                                  •  

                                    @pegaxs: All I can say is you must have a bloody dull workplace if that is what you all find funny….

                                  • +1 vote

                                    @pegaxs: Not involved in any mechanical industry but just like cars and enjoying some popcorn while you two had your discussion.

                                    Though I'm assuming when he was talking about "2000 rpm not being the same" he meant the mean piston speed varying in relation to the stroke to bore ratio? I.E. - http://achatespower.com/stroke-to-bore/

                                    Revolutions are revolutions aren't they, it's more a question of if you:

                                    a. like a long, slender stroke
                                    b. like a stubby, super fast stroke

                                    with your piston, seeing as the piston velocity is dependent on both the stroke length and the speed of revolutions crank.

                                    Both have their benefits as far as I understand, with one being better for racing since you can get a wider power band to accelerate a car and another better for getting big loads moving and up to a steady speed. Then of course you have that spectrum in between the two where most typical cars would be.

                                    Anyways I'm neither a trained mechanic nor mech engineer, just a guy who likes to lube up my own car.

                                    •  

                                      @Kikkoman56: The problem is that 2000rpm is 2000rpm, but yes, piston speed could change with the stroke, but when you are comparing a 3.0l diesel to a 3.0l petrol, the stroke could possibly end up being the same due to bore diameter. But yes, let's say between a 3.0l and a 14.0l engine at 2000rpm, the actual piston velocity would be different (but I'm not one for comparing apples and oranges.)

                                      The problem is that between these two similar displacement engines, the torque increase has little to do with "stroke" and more to do with the compression and the fuels energy density. More compression, more energy dense fuel, bigger bang, more torques. The diesel engine in this example could have a shorter stroke and still out torque the petrol.

                                      a. like a long, slender stroke
                                      b. like a stubby, super fast stroke

                                      Hehehe. I see what you did there… :D

                                      Both have their benefits as far as I understand

                                      And you are absolutely correct. Diesels are much better at things like towing and start/stop driving, due to their low down torque and the fact that they increase torque as rpm is lost (going up hills for example). Due to their lower RPM and massive torque, diesels are always way more economical on fuel. They don't need to run at 3,000 rpm @ highway speeds and will quite happily sit in their peak torque/power spot and chug away. Peak torque and power for a similar sized petrol engine may still be another 3~4,000 rpm away at highway speeds.

                                      Petrol engines are better suited to racing due to much higher achievable revs. This is due to much lower internal stresses and component weights. But then again, teams like Audi have taken diesels racing before and done quite well at things like endurance racing, where torque, fuel economy and reliability are more important than outright speed.

                                      It's horses for courses… If I am lugging around a big SUV in traffic or hauling my horse float up to the pony park on the weekends, diesel. If I'm taking the car up the local twisties on the weekend and doing track days, petrol for sure. (side note: If a diesel has a DPF, it should not be solely used for stop/start city driving. Only if you are frequently driving on highways/freeways or you are towing that horse float would I recommend a diesel that has a DPF. If you only live/drive in the city snarl and need an SUV, buy a hybrid.)

                                      The problem I had with the other poster was the amount of misinformation about diesels. This typically comes from someone who has an uncle who knows a guy, who knows another guy's dad who owned a diesel back in 1982 who said… And they were just spewing rubbish and Googling on the fly. If they weren't so stubborn and ignorant, I would have been happy to teach them what I know about diesels and answer any questions they had. After all, I have been working, repairing, tuning and testing engines for almost the last 3 decades…

                                      • +1 vote

                                        @pegaxs: Agree. Some fundamental Diesel engine misconceptions in here.

                                        Diesels dont rev as high because of a combination of ignition delay, and a limited angle window in which combustion can occur:

                                        1. There is a fixed time delay between the diesel being injected and combustion occuring. This means the angle over which this delay occurs increases as rpm increases.

                                        2. The injection and combustion event must occur within a certain limited angle of the compression stroke, otherwise cobustion will fail.

                                        Hopefully you can deduce that those two factors alone govern the rpm limit in a diesel engine.

                                        Bore/stroke can be identical, and the diesel will always have a lower potential rpm limit due to the above.

                                        While im here, stroke has little to do with compression ratio on production engines. Its the combustion chamber size and piston design that governs comoression ratio.

                                        Diesels often have longer strokes due to their lower rpm limit making a shorter stroke pointless. This increases their inherrant torque advantage even more.

                                        Petrol engines often have shorter strokes to make up for their lower torque by spinning faster. This allows them to produce more power, by applying lower torque but more often. This is not as efficient as just producing more torque.

        • +2 votes

          Have you ever driven a non-turbo diesel??? The last one I owned was a LandCruiser troopy 75 series with the 1hz. What a slug.

          My sister has a Lexus nx300h. It's very flash. Smaller then her precious rx330 though.

          You can't go wrong with the Lexus compared to an Audi, cough cough dieselgate, cough cough DSG..

  • +3 votes

    Some suggestions to consider that aren't the typical BWM/Audi responses…

    Sedans:
    Tesla Model 3 or used Model S (Go green. Save the planet.)
    Hyundai Genesis (Know a few (older) people who own these. Very underrated vehicle. Very nice.)
    Kia Stinger (Because it looks like a god damn shark on wheels!)

    SUV:
    Hyundai Santa Fe Highlander (Nice luxury without the ongoing headache costs.)
    Mazda CX9-Asaki/Azami/GT (Again, luxury feel without the Euro luxury headaches)

    Others:
    Camaro/Mustang (Not a sedan, but you know your dad would love one.)
    Fiat 500 Abarth (Because that's my default suggestion for any "what car should I buy" thread…)

    •  

      Also looking at a model 3, X and S might be out of budget.
      Hyundai, Kia and Mazda is out of consideration.
      They only need/have one car so a camaro/mustang although nice wouldn't suit.

      •  

        Yeah, I was about to take the Tesla off the list (just as you replied) because it seems the Cult of Elon deems these cars are worth more second hand than what they are new…

        And the others off the list due to badge snobbery? If that's the case, buy a Range Rover Sport. Cant go wrong with that at the local golf day and Sunday High Street shopping jaunt…

        • +3 votes

          badge snobbery, correct. It is a once in a lifetime thing for them.

          • +3 votes

            @Madlegger: Yaris wouldn't be any good. That's what the personal assistants assistant drives…

            If they need something where they can gather with the all the other badge snobs and stand around circle jerking over how expensive their cars are… Do you think $60~70,000 will be enough?

            Are you going to pay for upkeep/servicing of the vehicle for them? Are you going to pay insurance for them? Or is it just a present? They sounds like modest/humble people, have you asked what "they" would like? Maybe they would be happier in a Hybrid RAV4 than a BMW X3/X5…

        •  

          Get model 3 for sure. You won't regret it. I've got it and it's changed my life. Solar power car, next to no maintenance. Spacious. Fast. Safest car in the world

    • -5 votes

      You forgot about MG… comes with 7 years warranty…

      OP is keen to throw out $70k. so $ is not an issue.

      • +5 votes

        You forgot about MG…

        Hahaha… no, no I didn’t…

        OP is a badge snob, so I hardly think they would consider a Chinese made shitbox. But yes, for $70k they could afford 3 of them. So while two are in being repaired under warranty, they would still have a spare. And they could just rotate them out with the dealer as they need. And after the warranty ends, just drop them off to the scrap yard.

    • +2 votes

      Hyundai Genesis (Know a few (older) people who own these. Very underrated vehicle. Very nice.)
      Kia Stinger (Because it looks like a god damn shark on wheels!)

      SUV:
      Hyundai Santa Fe Highlander (Nice luxury without the ongoing headache costs.)


      ^ Take them for a drive before writing them off!!

  • +5 votes

    Honestly a Benz GLC will probably be the best and most comfortable vehicle for your parents. Solid, reliable, comfortable, easy to drive. Holds resale value. Take a look at them

    •  

      Honestly a Benz GLC will probably be the best and most comfortable vehicle for your parents

      Honestly, no. He said "They are not "car people", that is they don't really care about acceleration, handling, tech ect.".

      Holds resale value.

      Not as well as a Lexus NX does.

      reliable

      The non-turbo charged ones perhaps but Lexus is the better buy for reliability and less money down the drain.

      • +5 votes

        Holds value, reliable and Mercedes Benz in the same sentence is an oxymoron…

        • +3 votes

          Even a $45000 camry comes with all the bells and whistles without the absurd price tag.

  • +6 votes

    Volvo XC60/90?

    • +1 vote

      Agreed. 70k will get you more with a Volvo.

    • +1 vote

      Won't get a XC90 for that budget but the XC60 is a fantastic car.

      We have one both the new and old one.

      Only issue with the XC60 is the tech, old people may find using the navigation difficult. Total opposite of the analogue Lexus.

      Out of the 4 options, it would be the X3 if they wanted an SUV or a 330i M Sport.

      But old people like SUVs because it's easy to get in and out of.

  • +1 vote

    Whoa OP - a very generous gesture on your part but have you considered the possible ramifications for others if their parents read this topic and start getting ideas?? It could even morph and become a deal with Scotty & team being requested to add a 'parental' category 😮

    •  

      I'd probably buy my folks a swish car if they put me through a decent private school, paid for my university and gave me a leg up with getting a house.

      Yet I went to a low end state school, graduated uni with 150k debt and had to save my own deposit. So at most they're getting a Huffy, to share, and even that is being generous.

      •  

        haha they did put me in a pricy private school, which I got a full scholarship to uni so no debt.
        Pay for my first car and allow me to stay at home whilst saving up for my first house.

  • +1 vote

    Nice idea for a gift, wow $70k. But are they really after the badge (ie the sense of ownership of something aspirational and/or showing off) or the luxuriousness that they think the badge offers that other brands don't?

    I ask because I think when a lot of people picture themselves in a luxury car, they might be thinking about it like sinking into a plush cloud of leather and silently floating along the road. And that this only comes from certain companies, not the usual manufacturers of grinding gears and road noise they're used to.
    They might just be after a really amazing cloud more than anything.
    The trouble would be that (and this is just speculation) something like a Genesis may offer a much better luxury package in that budget, say on par with something towards a Merc S-class, while your budget might get you a Merc much closer to entry level.

    I'm saying that partly because I rented an 15yo S-class a while back, specifically choosing it over a newer E-class or Tesla in a similar budget, just because I wanted to try the plushness that I associate with the badge. But which I've felt a bit let down by in lower end Merc/BMW/Audi/etc which are nice enough, but nothing too special.

    That old S-class was great though, damn. Silent V8 engine, gliding around in a cloud of leather, a very nice experience. Take a look at the newest one in your budget. The feeling of high end luxury was still in the cabin and the drive, just a bit let down by dated technology.

    •  

      Why don't you want a loud engine/exhaust in a fast V8?

      • +1 vote

        Because an S-class is a luxury car intended to be more like a limo. The engine has a deep rumble to it, but they seemed to want to have a silent cabin, and a presence on the road that doesn't need to loudly announce itself. A loud exhaust wouldn't suit it.

        And it doesn't feel fast anyway, even though it is. I think the powerful engine is there to make it feel like moves comfortably and effortlessly, more than being for speed.
        So the car has a very heavy and solid feeling, but you can be doing 100 and it feels like you're silently gliding along. Then you put your foot down a bit and there's a slight, deep, roar from the engine for a moment (possibly piped in from the speakers) and suddenly you're up to 140 and still gliding along. Makes it feel like the car will do whatever you want, without a fuss or any sign of effort. So it's quite nice to drive, but if the exhaust was noisy it might not be.

        A few days before I had rented a Boxster. Fast car that feels fast, so you want that sound and the rush. So I thought the s-class was gonna be comfy but dull to drive, I was surprised at how nice it felt.

        • +1 vote

          Sounds like the 2005 S Class is something that needs to be experienced!

          • +1 vote

            @Fobsessive: Haha beats my Toyota Echo, that's for sure.

            I basically just had a foreign drivers license while working in Japan and found their version of drivemycar has all these stupidly nice cars for stupidly cheap. The Porsche was probably less than renting a Yaris from a store, and much more fun to drive around their racetrack quality mountain roads with very loosely enforced speed limits.

  • +26 votes

    Hello my long lost son

  • -1 vote

    Get a 2018 CLA45 AMG Sedan and call it a day.

    • +4 votes

      Kidding? That car will spend more time in the work shop than on road. Two mates' ones spent more time in the dealer's workshop than in their own garage.

      Engine is way over stressed and been built to limit.

  •  
    1. Lexus UX, unless they need more space, go with the RX300… NX interior is quite dated, and buttons are confusing… in fact, I was looking at the 7 seater RX300 earlier tonight as a people mover for home.

    2. BMW X1 seems good, unless they need more space… then X3…

    3. Merc… GLA seems good (the current gen comes without the new gigantic ipads)… GLC for something bigger. The new ones with two ipads docked against eachother as well interior LEDs are way too futuristic for personal taste. Family and friends have been having issue with the new Merc multi media system where the speedo goes blank whilst driving on freeway…

    4. Audi Q3… or Q5 for something bigger. Audi interior is my favourite… but I would unlikely buy another VW group product again… maybe a Boxster as a weekend car when kid gets older… If you do end up buying an Audi, have a spare car aside in case of any lengthy repair… as well put an additional $10k aside for post warranty repair budget…

    Irrespective which one you end up going for, a few things to note:
    1. Get it under corporate plan if possible for "free" schedule services
    2. Pick the best value of whatever the dealer has in stock (entry level might not necessary be the cheapest, esp after full optioned the car)
    3. Do them a favour and buy something with a sunroof, makes the car that lil bit more enjoyable.
    4. Do plenty of research on what people actual paid, instead of what the dealer tells you. Whirlpool is usually a good place to research on driveaway price of a car.

  • +1 vote

    What car do they have now? This will give an idea of what size the ‘need’. No point buying a large SUV if all they need is a smaller car. They’ll appreciate the reduced fuel bills and servicing costs if they are frugal.

    Seriously consider something electric if they are frugal. Got the tech, got some street cred without the large running costs. If it means waiting for 12 months it might be a better option.

    • +3 votes

      While a land cruiser is no doubt a big comfortable car, unless you plan to tow some serious weight or get off road properly it’s a waste. The original post for ‘SUV or large sedan’ doesn’t indicate anything about what the car will be used for other than poser factor. There is absolutely no need to recommend a big off road 4wd.

    • +2 votes

      A 200, even a Sahara, is massively missing major tech & safety features of newer cars. Buying it would be an absolute waste, as would driving a diesel car (with DPF) around the 'burbs.

      Comparing it to a RAV4 Cruiser Hybrid for instance makes the Sahara look like a dinosaur.

  • Top