Best car for new driver

[Anonymous]

looking for something used, under $10 k, but something that will have modern safety features. Any recommendations? Our thinking is she could keep the car for 3 or 4 years and then get something newer. We are partial to Toyota and Subaru, but we would consider other brands too.

[Anonymous]

My first car was a Ford Focus. Nice safety features and I think you can definitely get a used one for under $10K. I found the compact size pretty easy to handle.

[Anonymous]

Older Malibu works well

[Anonymous]

I'd do nicer vs. replace in a few years. Newer will have better safety features.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd do nicer vs. replace in a few years. Newer will have better safety features.

And in a few years newer will have nicer features than that old clunker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd do nicer vs. replace in a few years. Newer will have better safety features.

And in a few years newer will have nicer features than that old clunker.

But, a new driver is driving it NOW.

[Anonymous]

Corolla?

[Anonymous]

Anything Honda

[Anonymous]

Used Volvo XC90 or xc60 with high miles. You can say whatever you want about the tech features involved in prevention—-but don’t kid yourself, kids drive like kids. but perhaps the most important aspect is a cage that when an accident does occur, will protect the occupants. Honda Toyota Subaru are great for one accident, but bc they all have heavy crush zones, they don’t do as well on the 2nd or third accident. The old xc90 and xc60 have steel cages and doors, which need to be replaced with the same material—so are better for multiple accidents. I’m not an engineer so google the gist of what I’m saying and do your own research as my explanation isn’t that great via an iPhone. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

I am partial to Subaru. Good visibility and safety things. Probably do an Impreza.

[Anonymous]

Subaru or Volvo. I don't necessarily agree with all the details in the other Volvo post (why are you driving a car after multiple crumple zone accidents?) but I agree that what you want is a solid cage designed to protect the occupant even if the car is totaled. Subaru and Volvo both have those, even in very old models with no other safety bells and whistles. Toyota does not have the same crash test record although I agree they are reliable cars overall.

I grew up driving a 1984 Volvo sedan that got frighteningly loud and shaky above 55 mph, which is its own kind of safety feature. But I guess I wouldn't recommend a 1984 car these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Used Volvo XC90 or xc60 with high miles. You can say whatever you want about the tech features involved in prevention—-but don’t kid yourself, kids drive like kids. but perhaps the most important aspect is a cage that when an accident does occur, will protect the occupants. Honda Toyota Subaru are great for one accident, but bc they all have heavy crush zones, they don’t do as well on the 2nd or third accident. The old xc90 and xc60 have steel cages and doors, which need to be replaced with the same material—so are better for multiple accidents. I’m not an engineer so google the gist of what I’m saying and do your own research as my explanation isn’t that great via an iPhone. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:Subaru or Volvo. I don't necessarily agree with all the details in the other Volvo post (why are you driving a car after multiple crumple zone accidents?) but I agree that what you want is a solid cage designed to protect the occupant even if the car is totaled. Subaru and Volvo both have those, even in very old models with no other safety bells and whistles. Toyota does not have the same crash test record although I agree they are reliable cars overall.

I grew up driving a 1984 Volvo sedan that got frighteningly loud and shaky above 55 mph, which is its own kind of safety feature. But I guess I wouldn't recommend a 1984 car these days.

I agree with the volvo theory, and can expand on what the first poster mentioned---I think.....---most cars these days have 'crumple zones' where the car will get crushed to absorb the impact and not put force on the cage of the driver. In Japanese cars, the cruple zones are very broad and soft, meaning one can be at a stoplight, just start to accelerate, and just 'bump' someone in front of them and the entire front end crumples and now needs to be straightened out, which means that it was good for one accident. Imagine if the car doing the hitting was a Toyota that crumpled, and it hit the back of a volvo that has a more rigid bumper--the bumper in the volvo would absorb most of the force, not affecting the 'crumple zone' and the volvo would now, once the bumper was replaced, be good for multiple accidents. Cars are now designed to be disposable, so the manufacturers want the car to crumple---volvo is the only company I know of that still has slightly more rigid bumpers and then crumple zones. Even audi and bmw and land rover can now be crushed easily, especially with the advent of aluminum that is good for one crumple and then needs to be replaced--but it's weight saving. The good aspect of volvos is that they are heavy, have a steel unibody construction, and their mission even to this day is safety. Not reliability, or low cost of ownership--which is its one bag of worms, but for new drivers, my thought is the safety aspect. If not that, then weight---so a 10-15 year old suburban wins the weight aspect of an accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Subaru or Volvo. I don't necessarily agree with all the details in the other Volvo post (why are you driving a car after multiple crumple zone accidents?) but I agree that what you want is a solid cage designed to protect the occupant even if the car is totaled. Subaru and Volvo both have those, even in very old models with no other safety bells and whistles. Toyota does not have the same crash test record although I agree they are reliable cars overall.

I grew up driving a 1984 Volvo sedan that got frighteningly loud and shaky above 55 mph, which is its own kind of safety feature. But I guess I wouldn't recommend a 1984 car these days.

Hey now, they still made the Volvo 240 up until 1993- so you could get one that is only 10 years older than a 16 year old driver

As much as I love mine (1991) for the fact that it has the acceleration of a potato, and thus has saved me from countless speeding camera tickets, I'd recommend an early 2010's V/XC 70 for a new driver. It's a very similar car, but with modern safety features, and can be bought for about $10k +/-, and is relatively straightforward and not to terribly costly to maintain, provided you use an indy mechanic and don't rely on a Volvo dealership for service. Hate to be a pessimist, but most teenagers will get in a fender-bender at some point, and I'd want my DS/DD in the safest thing possible, even if the maintenance costs are a bit higher than a 3 year old Kia.