Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Hyundai Elantra 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
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: backy (Feb 02, 2009 8:50 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: jlflemmons (Feb 02, 2009 10:48 am) |
|
|
Replying to: GuitarGuy (Dec 06, 2008 4:40 pm) |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lhy (Feb 14, 2009 3:02 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: lhy (Feb 14, 2009 3:02 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Feb 15, 2009 2:07 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: BambuListener (Feb 15, 2009 4:51 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Feb 15, 2009 5:08 pm) As to CR - I don't know, not being privy to their numbers, if it's true that their stats are worthless due to statistical noise. I'd merely note, that I find that hard to believe - though not impossible - because these guys understand statistics, and would presumably account for elementary things like *margin of error*. I mean, a first year student of statistics gets that, so how can the CR folks miss that? Not likely. And what makes me even more suspicious, is that the findings dovetail with JD Powers. That's very, very telling. If two completely different surveys, using different methodology come to the same conclusions, odds are - they are measuring something real, and not statistical noise (which would be random). Regardless, you can always ignore all the data in favor of... I don't know what... speculation? Gut feel? Anecdotes? Uncle Charlie's musings? As politicians say: "whom are you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?" Personally, I stick by the stats, even if partisans or fans of whatever try to convince me to forego solid evidence right in front of your eyes. But that's just me. Your milage may vary 
|
|
|
Replying to: BambuListener (Feb 17, 2009 7:49 pm)  Stats are useful, but can be misleading. We know, for example, that CR's reliability categories are based on numerical data. They don't publish their cutoffs for each category, but there must be cutooffs. So let's say for example the upper-end cutoff for Average is 55 and the lower end cutoff for Above Average is 56. Suppose also the 2004 Elantra scored a 56 and the 2005 a 55, and the 2006 scored 56. Numerically and statistically a very small difference. But it appears to be a big difference due to the categorization. Also, in the 2008 CR Auto Issue, the 2003-5 Elantras were rated Above Average in predicted reliability. The 2002 was rated Average. The 2006 and 2007 Elantras were rated Much Better than Average. A consistent pattern, with improvement over time, but inconsistent with the data you posted, which I assume is more recent. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Hyundai Elantra Hyundai Elantra Maintenance and Repair
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Hyundai Elantra
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
