hard top conv 4 pass car?

[NSX]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

The most important safety feature in a convertible is not the top, but the roll bar. A hard top will deter thieves more, and it's more aesthetically pleasing, but if the vehicle does not have adequate rollover protection, it's a false sense of security. BMW has always done a good job with convertibles, hence the reason why they are not lighter than the coupe. A 6 series, even with s cloth top will be safer than say s domestic with little rollover protection. Mercedes also has implemented a sophisticated protection system in it's modern convertibles, even with a soft top. The new E convertible, while a tad pricey, does have such features. The previous 4 seat, the CLK would be worth a look for a used version, even Mercedes CPO. The 320/350 tended to be a bit more reliable than the 8 cylinder models, overall. The Merc is more boulevard cruiser, compared to a BMW, but could be sporty when compared to a domestic. Coming from a van, I think it might offer a good mix of RWD handling, room for passengers, and a trunk you can use as folding hardtops take almost all of the trunk away. If it's garaged, there should not be an issue with a soft top.

Interesting. I didn't think about it like that. I know many of the high-end convertibles on the road nowadays (Jaguar XK, Lamborghini Gallardo) etc still have cloth tops. But they have pop-up rollbars, that will engage in a matter of milliseconds, if the vehicle stability system senses the car will roll.

Would this be safer than a car with just a standard hardtop convertible, e.g Mercedes SLK55?

[SeaWorld Bound]

bmwguydc: thanks, but would you be so kind as to tell me which car is better for safety of my kids. sorry, I am trying to keep the bmw's numbers for the models straight, but you guys are throwing me a bit.

buying a used car is all my hubby can think of. he buys used. my cars have all been new.
I don't mind getting a used bmw, but not a 2003, thats too old. i'd rather have a new volvo than an old car that could end up having all sorts of things go wrong with it and would be expensive to fix.

I seriously thought the hard-top made the car safer. so much for my thinking. it was also cheaper (volvo is like 40,000) to please my hubby.

so, what vehicle would be best for: my kids safety, my sporty look, and then the vehicle maintenance and reliability. I would give up the sporty look for safety, and reliability.

oh, nxs, thanks for the pictures! I have been surfing the net looking at the cars, trying to see what I like and don't like. the volvo is not that bad to look at, but the bmw sure gives a more sporty look. my opinion...

[bmwguydc]

Actually, I think the SLK has Mercedes' standard rollover protection. The nice thing about Mercedes is that the rollover protection works whether the top is up or down. Mercedes has had the rollover protection for many years, going back to the early 1990s, and I would not hesitate to drive one because they are one of the safest convertibles around.

BMW and Volvo have systems integrated into the seats that pop up to give rollover proection in the event of a crash, whereas with Mercedes, it's a pop-up rollbar. They deploy in very quickly when the vehicle senses a rollover. BMW has it on the hardtop convertibles as well as soft top.

With BMW, the 3 series convertibles are the smaller set: 328, 335, M3, powered by a 6-cylinder engine, or in the case of an M3, an 8-cylinder. The 6 series BMW is a larger coupe-based convertible, that features an 8 or 10-cylinder powerplant in 650i or M6 models.

The Volvo is very safe, for a convertible, or even when compared to a regular car. I would give it an edge compared to a 3-series BMW, but a 6-series, being a larger, heavier car offers more in the way of occupant protection. Rear-end collisions are a vulnerable area for a convertible, because the solid structure of the car is removed. While the 3-series is sportiest, with a manual transmission, since you're transporting children I would definitely look to a Volvo in that size, or the larger BMW 6-series.

In my opinion, the Mercedes CLK and the Volvo C70 seem tailor-made for your requirements. They are safe, not too small, not too large. The back seat in a 3-series BMW convertible is very small, and the Volvo is a bit safer. With the Mercedes, the the drawback for sportiness is the lack of a manual transmission. And, if you can live with the 6-cylinder, it's pretty reliable, too. The 8 is a bit more tempermental in the CLK. The CLK was based upon the previous generation C-Class Mercedes sedan/wagon. The last model year was 2009, with the new E-Class based, slightly larger, convertible having been recently reintroduced to North America. The Volvo is also pretty reliable, for a Volvo, but as with any premium vehicle, the maintenance schedule is the bible for it. A certified example of either would also give you a warranty.

The drawback for the 6-series is the price, since it's in a different price category new than the CLK or 3-series, and Volvo (aside from the high-performance M3 and CLK55 AMG). Pre-owned, a prime example, since you'd not want an abused BMW will tend to command a premium. And, the styling is controversial to some: you either love it, or hate it. I saw a 2007 at a dealership near me for sale, certified, and they were asking $56k for it, but it has exceptionally low mileage. A good 2007 M6, would be around $55-$60k; and, a M6 convertible will be a bit more costly to maintain with the 10-cylinder engine, and insure.

[SeaWorld Bound]

thanks. your explanations are much appreciated. volvo, I can look at this weekend.
For the Mercedes, you mention the clk class. the 350 or the 550, right? Is the mercedes clk 550 the V8? so, for the 6 cylinder, I would look for the 350 convertible?
not many out there around here.
You mentioned 2009 (mercedes clk class). Are 2008's or 2007's ok? maybe 2006...

hesitant to ask why you say a " Volvo is also pretty reliable, for a Volvo"... So, are volvo's like bad cars?
thanks again !!

[bmwguydc]

Yes, there are a few years of the CLK. The 320 and 350 are the sixes.

The Volvo is a good car, but with both the Volvo and Merecedes, as with a BMW, you're not getting the same level of reliability and ease of repair as you would with a Honda. And, some Volvo dealers are better than others. I have had Volvos that were relatively trouble-free, and one that was a nightmare that ate transmissions for sport (that one was gone before the warranty expired). The C70 is toward the more reliable side of the Volvo line-up, but the main thing to remember is to follow the service protocol. For example, if you don't drive it many miles, but by time you need an oil change, don't delay it because the mileage is not at the service interval. Little things like that can make life easier with a Volvo, since the modern Volvos are techologically advanced autos that I find perform better for longer when you plan for the long-term with regard to service.

I would also recommend the aggrssive service schedule with a Mercedes, and when out of warranty, I would find a respected specialist for repair/maintenance as the dealership will charge a small fortune for routine maintenance. For certain issues, the dealership us the best place, however.

I guess it's the long way if saying that the Volvo is a good car, but is a niche European vehicle that's slightly more complex than a mainstream vehicle, like a Honda.

[seamusnh]

I am looking at the Toyota Solara convertible. I like the looks of the new ones and all the Toyotas i have had have been super reliable...