Sign In Join 



Hyundai Elantra Maintenance and Repair

3260 messages,  Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM

You are in the Hyundai Elantra Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Elantra, Hatchback, Sedan


Messages Page 312 of 327
1
...
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
...
327
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#3104 of 3260
New rear brakes at 41k? by backy
Feb 02, 2009 (8:50 am)
Reply
I took my '04 GT in for an oil change today and to adjust the parking brake. Service guy said the rear disc brakes were at 10%. I was a little surprised by that, since I'm easy on the brakes, but had the work done. Does that seem unusual to anyone else that the rear brake pads should need replacing so soon?
 
At least the oil change was free. Also I had them check the hatch struts, which don't support the hatch nearly as well as they used to. They have ordered replacements, covered under warranty--which is up in 2 months. At least the powertrain warranty has another 5 years and 58k miles to go. Will take my son almost all the way through college.
#3105 of 3260
Re: New rear brakes at 41k? [backy] by BambuListener
Feb 02, 2009 (10:37 am)
Reply

Replying to: backy (Feb 02, 2009 8:50 am)

I have a 2004 Elantra GLS, and was told that the rears are at 20%. One thing which people don't often realize is that your brake pad usage is impacted by how well your wheels are aligned. If your wheels are even slightly misaligned (very easy to happen on Elantras), the break pads will go down much faster due to pattern of use.
#3106 of 3260
Re: New rear brakes at 41k? [backy] by jlflemmons
Feb 02, 2009 (10:48 am)
Reply

Replying to: backy (Feb 02, 2009 8:50 am)

Backy, that is not unusual at all, actually pretty good. The rear pads are organic, ie not semi-metallic and wear faster. Coupled with the fact that they are really small, 35 to 40K is about all you can hope for.
 
When I changed the rears on my '05, I tried to get semi-metallic but found that no one made anything but organic for that application.
 
Side note: When changing the rear pads on these, the piston doesn't just push back in. You need a special tool (available at Harbor Freight for like $3) that attaches to a 3/8 ratchet and allows you to push while turning the piston. For want of a better term, they sort of screw back in.
 
Very simple brake job, takes less than an hour for both sides.
#3107 of 3260
Re: New rear brakes at 41k? [jlflemmons] by backy
Feb 02, 2009 (1:56 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jlflemmons (Feb 02, 2009 10:48 am)

Thanks for the info. Since high temps are in the single digits F and my garage isn't heated (excuses excuses), I decided to let the dealer handle it. Anyway, it's been many years since I did any brake work and that was on drums. Hopefully that will be the only major thing it needs until the 60k service--which won't be for another 3 years at the rate we're going. Aside from a few small dings and a salty driver's floor mat, the car still looks (and drives) like new.
#3108 of 3260
Re: Headlights Out On Passenger Side Only [GuitarGuy] by GuitarGuy
Feb 09, 2009 (4:09 pm)
Reply

Replying to: GuitarGuy (Dec 06, 2008 4:40 pm)

Well, it's been a few months, but I've finally discovered my problem. It was a common ground (makes sense, huh?) ... my headlamp assembly tended to fog up and it seems that the ground pin of the wiring block within the headlamp assembly had rusted away. I researched the proper part number (# 92150-2D500) , then installed the new wiring harness/block and I was back in business ... sort of. Hyundai's "Better Idea" was to use the same part on multiple vehicle/years (kudos for their foresight, especially if it's passed on to consumers in savings!). The problem is that the ground connection for the hi-beam lamp was not the right size! Hyundai must have gone smaller in newer models, so I had to cut the connector off and crimp on a new larger sized connection. Not a real biggie for me, fortunately, since I was at a shop with lots of supplies including a selection of crimp-on electrical connectors ... just forewarning you all ... check this out if you're expecting everything to snap right into place ... NOT on the 2002 Elantra! Great forum ... thanks again to Doohickie!
#3109 of 3260
Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan by lhy
Feb 14, 2009 (3:02 am)
Reply
I am thinking about buying a used 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan (automatic transmission). It has about 76K miles and is selling for $3200.
 
I was wondering what people's opinions of this model are and how much repairs usually cost.
 
I have read on reviews for this car on websites like CarSurvey.org or KBB.com. They seem to suggest that repairs are usually expensive and that the car has problems with the transmission and interior issues like the power windows not working.
 
What are people's opinion on these things?
 
http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/hyundai/elantra/2000/
 
http://www.kbb.com/KBB/UsedCars/ConsumerRatings/2000_Hyundai_Elantra_Sedan_Priva- te%20Party_Good.aspx?Mileage=76400
#3110 of 3260
Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [lhy] by BambuListener
Feb 14, 2009 (12:05 pm)
Reply

Replying to: lhy (Feb 14, 2009 3:02 am)

The sites you linked to give interesting feedback, but honestly, you need more extensive stats to draw any conclusions - and even then, exceptions always happen, so you should always examine the particular car carefully.
 
For more extensive stats, you can look at Consumer Reports. I can't link to it, as it's for subscribers only, but I can summarize some of the findings for the Elantra 2000.
 
CR rates things Better--->Above Average----->Average----->Below Average---->Worse
 
For the Elantra 2000, it lists categories of:
 
1)Engine Minor - Worse Than Average
2)Engine Major - Better Than Average
 
So it means, you'll have some minor engine problems, but no major engine problems - not good, IMHO.
 
3)Transmission Major - Worse
4)Transmission Minor - Worse Than Average
 
This is bad - real bad. Transmissions are very, very expensive to fix. I'd stop considering the car just based on this, frankly.
 
5)Drive System - Worse
 
That's it, game over, IMHO.
 
6)Fuel System - Average
 
Also not good - you want better than average.
 
Other problem areas: paint/trim, body hardware.
 
Overall verdict - Average.
 
Personally, I'd stay away. You want most of the categories Better or Better Than Average. Here, most are Average or Worse Than Average.
 
You don't want an Average rating overall - you want Better Than Average.
 
Just based on the transmission, I'd run. Sure you can get lucky and get a car that will never have a problem, but you gotta look at the numbers. There's no way to tell if a transmission will have a problem ahead of time (you can examine fluid, but a dealer will change the fluid so even that can't tell you much). If you know that the trannies on this model are bad - that's too big a risk. You won't fix it for much under $1000 should you develop a problem, more likely $1200-1400. Too risky.
 
In summary, I'd look elsewhere. Of course, all IMHO.
#3111 of 3260
Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [lhy] by backy
Feb 15, 2009 (2:07 pm)
Reply

Replying to: lhy (Feb 14, 2009 3:02 am)

A car that is 9 years old with 76k miles can have anything break at any time. KBB private-party value is about $3000, so there may be negotiating room on the car. If the car is in good condition and was well-maintained (all records, including for the important 60k service), and checks out OK when you take it to a mechanic for an inspection, it might be worth it. But for a few hundred bucks more you can get a much nicer car, with a better reliability record. The Elantra was redesigned for 2001 and that generation has a better reliability record. For example, CR recommends the 2003-6 Elantras as Good Choices in used cars, and Edmunds.com has the 2001-6 Elantra as its Top Choice for small used cars. But on those cars, too, the maintenance history is important. The car does require a timing belt change every 60k miles. I owned a 2001 GLS for 5-1/2 years, sold it to my sister, and she still has it and except for some body damage (not the car's fault), it looks and drives great. My 2004 GT looks and runs like new except for a few dings and scratches. Both cars have been very reliable. So it they were well-maintained, these cars can be good bets as used cars.
#3112 of 3260
Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [backy] by BambuListener
Feb 15, 2009 (4:51 pm)
Reply

Replying to: backy (Feb 15, 2009 2:07 pm)

If you go by Consumer Reports, you'll see something interesting. The overall score for the car as a used car doesn't go above average until year 2004. Then, the 2005 year actually goes down to average again (not good!), and picks up with 2006. Of course, 2006 forward is too short a track record for long term reliability to tell, so the real bottom line for Elantras is: buy 2004, avoid 2005, and hope for the best with 2006 and more recent.
 
Interestingly, it's pretty much the same story if you look at J.D. Powers long term reliability too:
 
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/hyundai/elantra/100342729/ratings_jdpower.html
 
On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being best, the Elantra 2004 stands out as the best bet for Long Term Dependability not falling below 2.5 on any score, with most in the 3-3.5 range. That's better than any other year Elantra, and the individual scores otherwise are VASTLY better than the 2005, which really falls down totally, with most scores at 2! Wow, that's one year to avoid! Meanwhile J.D. Powers doesnt' score Long Term Dependability for 2005 or more recent because not enough time elapsed to make a judgment.
 
Bottom line: if you go by statistics, the Elantra to buy is 2004, with 2005 to avoid and more recent too recent to tell. Now, that's statistics FROM TWO DIFFERENT scoring agencies (CR and JD Powers) - not anecdotal stories from random people - and that means very, very reliable.
 
Of course, again, the individual car is the most important factor - I'm sure there are very happy Elantra 2000, or 2005 owners, and very unhappy 2004 owners, but the statistics tell you what you can expect by the numbers.
 
Cars get redesigned for big years (2001 and 2006 for the Elantra), but they also get tweaked a bit every year - mostly to improvement, sometimes not (2005 - boo!), but the stats is what counts - this is what large numbers of owners report.
 
Personally, I'd avoid the year 2000 for an Elantra.
#3113 of 3260
Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [BambuListener] by backy
Feb 15, 2009 (5:08 pm)
Reply

Replying to: BambuListener (Feb 15, 2009 4:51 pm)

To me, that casts doubt on JD Power's long-term reliability scores, since the 2004 Elantra was the mid-gen refresh car, while the 2005 and 2006 were 100% carryover from 2004: same powertrains, same interior, same body, same everything. So they should have very similar scores to the 2004, and if anything the 2004 should be lower because it was the first year of the refresh, and is older.
 
As for CR's, all it takes is a fraction of a point either way to move a car from Above Average to Average, or vice-versa, so the variations between 2004-6 are explainable at least. To me, a car having an Average reliability score from CR is not a reason by itself to avoid it. If so, I suppose buyers would need to avoid buying new cars like the Camry and Altima, because CR says their predicted reliability is only Average. We are talking about very small differences in number of defects per car here.

Messages Page 312 of 327
1
...
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
...
327
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement