My H drives a Hyundai Elantra, he drives a ton of miles for work. We thought about a hybrid but decided the extra cost wasn’t cost effective over the long haul. H gets 33+ MPG on this car, driven almost exclusively highway.
We just bought a new car, a Subaru Outback (my previous one was totaled) :(. Decided to buy new because we really wanted a back up camera and Bluetooth capability. If he’s driving that much everyday, hands free talking is essential. I’m not sure what year the back up cameras became popular but I recommend at least that new. Also my Subaru has a blind spot indicator and that is really nice.
No advice on the car. But I regret to inform your son, there is no longer a ‘reverse commute’ when it comes to the SF area :). On certain corridors, traffic is just plain bad all the time.
Hybrid batteries now come with long term warranties (I believe it is law at this point) of 150,000 miles, so it is likely if the kid gets a car with let’s say 30,000 miles, it will be several years before he hits that limit even with the commute he has. Battery packs can last a lot longer than that as well. And while the gas engine powertrain on cars is very reliable, if your engine or transmission needed major work after 150,000 miles, it would cost you as much to fix that likely as it would to replace the battery pack (replacing the batteries on a prius is around 3500 bucks, which would be the cost with parts and labor of doing any major powertrain work on a gas engine). It doesn’t mean a hybrid is the perfect car, cars that get in the 30+ mpg range may be a better fit than a hybrid, depends on the driver.
@dietz199 is right EXCEPT the reverse commute back to Walnut Creek is relatively traffic free I drive Oakland - Walnut Creek at about 8AM and then back at around 4:30PM and I hit almost no traffic. But the other way (people coming to/from SF) are stuck in awful traffic.
I owned several Hondas in the 80’s, 90’s and '00’s. At that time I would have put them head to head with Toyotas. Then I started to drive Toyotas and then went back to a 2014 Honda. The Honda (an Accord) drove much worse than my Toyotas. I’m now back to a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. I get 33 mpg. DH owned a couple of BMW’s in the same time period. They’re in a whole different class, imo.
A few of my friends have the toyota corolla S which they really like. Sporty enough, not completely numb to drive, and it’s small so it’s easy to park which matters if they’re living in SF. Which reminds me, why live in SF if you’re commuting out? It’s so expensive to live there.
We have a used 2009 Honda Accord that we were gifted. It’s very uncomfortable and our mechanic and body shop guy both believe it was in an undisclosed accident before it was purchased from Hertz. The seats are horribly uncomfortable and it feels like a tin box on wheels. We had to wait a very long time before we could get the airbag part replace on the passenger side of the vehicle. The header is falling in. Mechanically, we haven’t had to fix much but the paint started failing shortly after we received the vehicle in around 2014.
By contrast, we have a 2000 Toyota Sienna van that still drives well and is comfortable. The header is still good and it has been a good car from when we purchased it new, even though it has 80,000 more miles on it than the Accord. The paint is still in pretty good shape. As I type this, I’m thinking our next car will be a Toyota.
@LBowie, yes, thanks. It’s the headliner. It surprised me that it is not lasting as long as I thought it would, but I guess HI’s heat is too much for it. The good thing about clunker cars that run well is I can park wherever I want and not worry about someone dinging it–the folks with nice cars give me LOTS of space.
I drive Oakland - Walnut Creek at about 8AM and then back at around 4:30PM and I hit almost no traffic. But the other way (people coming to/from SF) are stuck in awful traffic.