Last post on Sep 02, 2013 at 12:12 PM
You are in the Hyundai Elantra
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Elantra, Hatchback, Sedan
Go to NHTSA to file a safety complaint.
Or call Monday-Friday (8 am to 8 pm ET) (888) 327-4236 TTY: (800)424-9153
#3119 of 3420 Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [backy]
Feb 18, 2009 (5:46 pm)
"What is a Hyundai specific problem?"
Gee, I don't know - I guess there's no reason then to have shops and mechanics who are dedicated to just Volvo/Saab or VW or whatever brand, huh? Wonder why they exist then Seriously though, that's silly. Every car brand has its pecularities, and a mechanic who is not specifically versed in that range of issues is not a good choice to have experiment on your vehicle. For standard stuff, yeah, but not once you hit the pecularity. For example, you have a 2002 Mazda RX 7 with a twin-rotor Wankel rotary engine. If you want to fix brakes on it - fine, go to any mechanic. But if you need work on the engine, you better go to a mechanic who has experience with Wankel engines or get ready for an epic FAIL. And so for every brand - there's a reason why for complex issues specific to a given brand you go to mechanics who have training and experience with that specific brand... for generic issues, generic mechanics are fine.
And getting back to the earlier issue of models 2004 vs 2005 etc. Yes, indeed, it happens pretty much 100% of the time that the manufacturer changes *some* suppliers from year to year even on exactly the same model (if for no other reason than that some suppliers may go out of business etc, etc. etc.). Only very small specialty brands (like f.ex. Ferrari) may pretty much recreate exactly the same cars from one year to the next. For large scale brands, that is almost NEVER the case. Not to mention that even staying with the same supplier doesn't guarantee the exact same result, since the supplier in turn may change processes the effect of which don't turn up until they're put into play for several months. There are always variations year to year whether in materials, suppliers, quality control or a million other issues. Same design - different manufacture variables from year to year (often on economic grounds), which can give you a different result on long term reliability stats. Elementary reality of manufacturing complex products I bet you don't have much experience with large scale manufacturing
#3120 of 3420 Re: Opinions of 2000 Hyundai Elantra GLS sedan [BambuListener]
Feb 18, 2009 (8:21 pm)
An Elantra isn't an RX-7, doesn't have a Wankel engine or warp drive with dilithium crystals, and is a pretty basic car. And there's detailed shop manuals for it, that any good mechanic should be able to follow. Because it has the usual OBD, the mechanic would need access to the diagnostic computer for some repairs, but that is very common nowadays.
I understand the elementary reality of manufacturing complex products. But you don't know for a fact which if any key components--the ones that affect reliability--were changed on the Elantra from 2004-5 and 2005-6, do you?
Anyway, if you look closely at the JD Power reliability scores that you posted the link to earlier, you will see how suspect they are. For example, notice that the Mechanical ratings, the ones that directly relate to reliability, are very close between 2004 and 2005. In fact, there is only one difference: 2004 has 4.0 on interior, and 2005 has 4.5. That difference could easily be explained by the problematic audio system used in the 2004 Elantra GT, and only in that year. That issue is reflected in CR's ratings also. But then notice the "Design" scores. The design of the 2004 and 2005 Elantra was the same. But the JD Power scores are different, on Interior design (and therefore overall as well). How can that be, when the design was the same for both model years? Then look at the Overall Performance and Design ratings. They are markedly different between 2004 and 2005, in all categories: Performance, Comfort, Features and Instrument Panel, and Style. We're not talking about component quality here, but performance, design, and style. And the 2004 and 2005 model years were the SAME in those regards. Same powertrains, same interiors, same exteriors. Yet the 2004 scored much higher there than the 2005. How can that be, if these ratings are objective? Well, it's because they aren't objective. In fact, the major difference in the JD Power IQS scores between the 2004 and 2005 Elantra are due to subjective measures, not on reliability considerations. Notice also how the design-related scores shot up for 2006--but it was the same car design as for 2005! And the subjective measures like performance and style changed for 2006 too. That's not surprising, since they are subjective.
Finally, keep in mind that the JD Power ratings for 2004-6 that you posted the link to are for initial quality, not long-term quality. That is, for the first 90 days of ownership. The only model from 2004-6 old enough to have JD Power Long-Term Reliability scores is the 2004.
Feb 19, 2009 (2:06 pm)
Of course an Elantra is not an RX-7 - that's what an analogy is. Analogy doesn't mean "identical". By definition. What the analogy does do however, is points out that every car brand has something specific and unique to it. No need to resort to dilithium crystals or kryptonium. Works for other cars, doesn't it? Otherwise it wouldn't be a different brand, if everything was identical. Pretty logical, no? And there are manuals for RX-7 as well. Or for any car. That still doesn't remove the need for mechanics trained in that particular brand. Because, odd as it may seem, manuals are not enough. Weird, huh?
As to whether I know "for a fact" which if any key components were changed on the Elantra - of course I don't. However, neither do you - see how that works? Only here's the difference: the burden of proof is on you, not me. The reason is because *you* made a claim that 2004 and 2005 being the same design, must mean that JD Power stats are invalid. I merely reported the stats. You made a claim. I pointed out that the fact of the same design in 2004 and 2005 does NOT by that fact alone guarantee that the reliability would be identical, and I cited some examples of how that is possible (different suppliers, different QC practices etc.). I pointed out ways of how your argument doesn't hold water. But that does not alter the fact, that it is YOU who has to show how the same design MUST result in the same stats. I showed how that's not necessarily right - gaping holes in your argument. Stats are there from JD Powers. You have to show why they are wrong - and the argument you made ("same design") doesn't hold water. The burden of proof is on you. Until then, the stats stand presumed valid, absent proof to the contrary.
I am not an expert in Elantras. Maybe there were tiny differences between the interior design of the 2004 and 2005 which affected "comfort" etc. For example, the 2000 has massive power window problems, which would not be externally visible, and a change would fix it - also not visible. So it might look like the same design but there may be tiny changes which impact operation, even if not visually.
But even if there weren't, even if they were identical, there's still the stats from CR regarding problem areas (and indeed in my previous posts I pointed out that JD Powers hasn't yet done a long term reliability for 2005 and up). They are all mechanical, and all devastating for 2005 compared to 2004. The burden of proof of why they are wrong - CR with their teams of experienced testers vs "backy". The burden of proof is on "backy". I like and trust "backy", but I trust CR more, absent direct proof to the contrary. That's the rational attitude, no? Otherwise we're at the mercy of anyone's anecdote. That's the whole point of the existence of testing from independent consumer organizations like CR. No?
#3122 of 3420 Re: [BambuListener]
Feb 19, 2009 (2:24 pm)
If you don't see, from inspection of the JD Powers survey results that you posted, that there are inconsistencies in how identical characteristics (e.g. performance, styling, features) of two model years score, then it's not something that is worth my time to continue discussing (or "proving", in your terms). Anyway, it's not directly related to the Maintenance and Repair topic, and our Host has been patient with us so far so it's best not to push that forebearance.
FWIW, I know the Gen 3 Elantra (2001-6) extremely well, at least wrt design, having owned two of them and driven samples from every model year.
Feb 19, 2009 (3:01 pm)
No, what I see is that there are complexities in the scores. We don't know the methodology. We don't know if there weren't changes made that are not visible, but do impact operation. So until we have some kind of informed proof that they are wrong, I'll trust the qualified test people rather than an individual and his/her anecdotal experience. And what you are ignoring 100% is the CR results (as opposed to the JD Power), which focus very sharply on mechanical quality of 2004 and 2005 - and that is directly relevant to the maintenance and repair topic... as the OP had a chance to find out when he took the 2000 for a ride, and the tranny which was lambasted by CR gave out - bingo! I ask a simple question - what is a better guide... the experienced independent CR test teams, or someone on the web and their individual anecdotal feedback?
And I am not an Elantra specialist. I own a 2004 which I purchased used. And I've driven 2007 and 2008 Elantras, but by no means do I consider myself qualified to speak authoritatively on these cars (though I do have my opinions). What I try to do is be an informed consumer, that's all. And when looking for data, I try to look for data that is reliable. JD Power and CR may not be the Platonic ideal - nothing is. But it is a lot better than one random person's opinion. Just the facts, ma'am.
#3124 of 3420 Re: [BambuListener]
Feb 19, 2009 (3:20 pm)
I talked about the CR survey results previously. Go back and take a look.
You seem to be putting great emphasis on the individual anecdotal feedback of one person who drove an Elantra with a bad tranny.
I agree surveys like CR's are valuable. But I think they need to be seen for what they are, e.g. JD Power's IQS is a reflection on short-term reliability plus other factors, including what owners think of the car's design, its performance, its style, its features---attributes that have nothing to do with reliability. In other words, it's largely an opinion poll.
Feb 19, 2009 (3:51 pm)
I only spoke of the one person's experience as it relates to how useful it might be to pay attention to surveys and studies. And even if we disregard JD Powers totally, that still leaves us with the CR surveys, which are a ton more statistically valid than one person's feedback. The methodology for the CR surveys was not the same as JD Power's, it's a simple statistical survey. People's experiences. In aggregate - which is always better and more predictive than a one person data point. And those surveys tell us clearly that there was a catastrophic deterioration from 2004 to 2005. No real way to ignore that - and if someone has better data, let's see it, in black and white. We're waiting. Until then, the CR results stand. And the CR results are still more valid than one person's anecdotal feedback.
#3126 of 3420 Re: [BambuListener]
Feb 19, 2009 (4:42 pm)
The methodology for the CR surveys was not the same as JD Power's, it's a simple statistical survey.
Actually, it's not. Have you taken the CR reliability survey before? I have. It requires each respondee to make a value judgement, i.e. it asks them to note problems that in their opinion were signficant. What is signficant to you or me may not be significant to someone else. Because of the large sample size of CR's survey, I think the results are still useful, but it's in no way a "simple statistical survey."
It seems you are putting a lot of faith into two surveys in which you have no idea what methodology is used to obtain the results.
It's also interesting to me that you have no problem backing your opinion with one person's anecdotal experience, but dismiss other anecdotal experience that is contrary to your opinion.
The CR survey results I looked at, from the 2008 Auto Issue, do not show any sort of "catastrophic deterioration" in the Elantra's reliability from 2004 to 2005, and in fact as I noted previously, the predicted reliability for both years was the same: Above Average.
But you know what, there's an entire discussion in Town Hall on the JD Power and CR surveys, so if you want to continue this thread, I suggest we take it there.
Feb 19, 2009 (6:22 pm)
Whether a problem is "minor" or "major" may be subject to opinion. What is not, is that there is a problem in the first place - whether it's major or minor is secondary. As such, if I see very few complaints about problems for brand X, but a lot of complaints about brand Y, then that's all I need to know... a dispute may break out about how much of the brand Y problems are "minor" vs "major", but I'd rather stick with NO problems, and so plump for brand X. So the overall number is what matters. Now, CR does break down problems into major and into minor - fine, let's disregard that. What we can't disregard is that there IS a problem (major or minor).
As to the overall verdict of 2004 vs 2005 - I don't know about the 2008 Auto issue. I'm going by what's on their website right now - and anyone who has access to CR online is welcome to verify it. And there it is: on the overall verdict, which they call "Used Car Verdicts", it shows 2004 as "better than average" (red half circle), and for 2005 it shows "average" (plain black circle). Here a link, but you may have to be a subscriber:
Thus there is deterioration from 2004 to 2005 (then picks up again for 2006) - according to CR. I'm just reporting on what I'm seeing.
As to the one person's experience with the tranny - the only reason I cited it, is not to say "that proves that 2000 trannys are bad", rather "that's why it can be useful to see what is being said by surveys", because in *this case* it mirrors the findings. And that's a fact - the mirroring; now what that implies is up to your choice as a consumer. I'm merely reporting on the FACT that this particular experience *mirrored* the survey finding, which is an objective fact (after all, it did).