Does the 2013 (first gen) have benefits over the later models?

[Artmatthew]

After looking at a used 2015 TC cargo today that was kind of beat up, I am wondering if a 2013 model might be a good buy. I'm seeing a 2015 and 2017 for sale at about $16,500 with about 80,000 miles. The 2013 with similar mileage is only $10,000. The 2015 I looked at today had side panels (where the windows would be) that were loose and rattled when I test drove it. I noticed they were fiberglass or some similar material and weren't attached very well from the factory. After seeing that, I am wondering if the first gen. might be more well constructed. I read on another thread that they are prone to transmission issues, but perhaps that would show in a test drive? Thanks a bunch for your input.

[Don Ridley]

In general, no the Gen 1 is not better than the gen 2. The only real advantage is extra roof height. Gen 2 has a better drivetrain (stronger motor) and updated electronics (same as Focus). But many report  lots of miles in both and they seem to last. 

 

$16,500 seems high for the base model Gen 2.... But I am not in the market.

[Fifty150]

5 hours ago, Don Ridley said:

$16,500 seems high for the base model Gen 2

 

 

$10,000 seems kind of high for a Gen 1.  But then again, it's a free market.  Any car is only worth what the seller and buyer agree on.  I'm sure that whomever is listing that van @ $10,000 expects some haggling, and will take less.  

 

 

6 hours ago, Don Ridley said:

Gen 2 has a better drivetrain (stronger motor) and updated electronics (same as Focus).

 

Not to mention better mileage with the transmission gearing.  This is one of those cases where the newer model was an improvement.  

 

Pricing aside......The 1st generation van could be better for parking with the short wheelbase.  If you find yourself buying a 1st generation van, have it checked out by a good mechanic.  Get a list of all maintenance required, even stuff that isn't immediately needed.  Include things like a radiator flush, brakes, spark plugs, transmission service, etc.  You are essentially buying a big repair bill.  With a vehicle that old, wipers and light bulbs could set you back another $100.  You're buying X-years & X-miles of wear.  The front end on that car will require suspension and drive parts sooner, rather than later.  Figure in another $500 for tires.  Then there's all the emissions control system items that could cause more trouble for you.  Whatever price you think you're buying a used car for; you will have another couple of thousand dollars of work to put into it.  Still, used cars can be a good value.  No payments.  You save on insurance.  Somebody else paid the dealer's sales commission and lost money on depreciation.  Buying a new car is great if you have money you don't mind losing.  

 

21 hours ago, Artmatthew said:

prone to transmission issues, but perhaps that would show in a test drive?

 

 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Transmissions can be funny.  You can't physically look inside to see what the wear parts look like.    Forum members seem to be in agreement, along with a lot of mechanics, that the transmissions should be serviced.  Most people in the general public do not service their transmissions.  Odds are against you finding a used 1st generation van where the previous owner flushed the transmission every 25,000 miles, and kept records.  Just from what I've seen, a lot of the older vans suffered from lack of maintenance and overloading.  People tended to stuff as much as can fit into the van, and the overloaded vans really wore down the transmissions.