Last post on Jun 19, 2013 at 6:38 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#3475 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1]
Jul 18, 2007 (11:47 am)
I want PROOF that it will hold up for a good 7-8 years. And obviously we won't get that proof for a while.
So I'd really hesitate to buy it.
There's no way any mid-size car manufacturer can meet that standard, since the 2007 or 2008 or 2009 model is going to be considerably different than a 2000, 2001 or 2002 model.
Assuming the Honda Accord to be the best 2000, there is no guarantee that the much-altered 2007 will equal its reliability, endurance, etc. because so many changes will have been made in the interim.
Cars are like stocks: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Buying any new mid-size is a crap shoot. Some makes and models are going to be better than others, no matter what.
The 2007 Aura might be the best mid-size sedan GM has ever built and it may be trouble-free into 2014 but that doesn't necessarily mean that the 2014 model will fare as well.
#3476 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [urnews]
Jul 18, 2007 (1:46 pm)
I don't agree, and neither does Consumer Reports (I know! I uttered the dreaded CR!)
If a manufactuer--say, Honda--consistenly builds reliable cars, every year, than there is a much, much greater chance--both statistically and rhetorically--that they will continue to do so. CR is generally willing to give reliability recommendations on new models when the previous model performed very well for the life of the car for that reason, and past performance is a very reliable indicator of (no pun intended) reliability.
And really, this goes beyond mid-size cars. General Motors, for instance, has consistent long term reliability issues across all models--many of them are shared-component problems (ie, brakes). That could well change, but it will be a while before we know. It doesn't take 7-8 years (though I did mention that), I think we'll probably have a good idea in 3-4 or so. But what I speak of is an overall problem. According to many CSR's at GM dealers I've spoken with (and, unfortunately, I've gotten to know them very well), the problems we've experienced with our Malibu also show up on G6, Trailblazer, the minivans, etc. They're more systematic than anything else.
The other issue which I didn't bring up is how a manufacturer treats these issues when they do come up. GM's got a ways to do here, also.
#3477 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1]
Jul 18, 2007 (2:03 pm)
One thing with Honda is they excel at everything they build. Be it cars, motorcycles, marine engines, lawn equipment, jet skis, etc.
Several of Honda's outboard marine engines use basically what is in their cars. THe civic 4cyl is used in Honda's medium HP outboards and the Odyssey 3.5L v6 is the basis for the 225hp Honda outboard. If an engine can hold up to marine use and can pretty much withstand anything. Honda is always one of the tops in reliability in the marine category too. Amazingly, a HOnda 225hp outboard engine costs more than a whole civic.
#3478 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1]
Jul 18, 2007 (2:26 pm)
Didn't something similiar happen with the Saturn L-series? Winning awards, receiving praise in road tests, etc... until the problems started surfacing. I think it took a couple of years before the major ones came out.
Of course, as mentioned above, this is no gaurantee of how the Aura or any other GM built today will fare into the future. But past performance is really all we have to go by as far as estimating long-term reliability. How well can we estimate that? Probably not too well.
An interesting note: during my short stint as a car salesman, I sold a Mustang GT automatic to a middle-aged man who used to calibrate the machines used to build engines at Ford. He was very specific on getting the 4.6L V8 instead of any other Ford engine for "durability purposes." He had no interest in the performance potential, and his wife was going to be the main driver. On the test drive, she didn't even rev it past 2,500 RPM.
He stated, and I can't remember his source, that when domestic companies engineered car parts, they set certain ranges for the various parameters the engineers had to work with: what materials may be used, how much the finished part would cost to make, and how long it would last.
The funny thing was, he told me, that if the part was designed outside of the ranges either way... too expensive OR too cheap, wears out too fast in testing OR lasts too long... it was rejected. They didn't want their cars to last too long or their parts sell too cheap.
Is this true? I certainly don't know, and I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But after my experience with my 2004 Ford, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
#3479 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1]
Jul 18, 2007 (2:42 pm)
If a manufactuer--say, Honda--consistenly builds reliable cars, every year, than there is a much, much greater chance--both statistically and rhetorically--that they will continue to do so.
Only makes sense to me as well - and it works in both directions. CR, for whatever fault or differences we all might have with their particular priorities, is the only organization I know of that does things like reliability studies/comparison tests/satisfaction surveys and is not beholden to anybody for whatever results they come up with. As such it should be taken seriously by those consumers valuing an 'intelligent' purchase decision.
I have noticed that CR does have a tendency to 'recommend' a car earlier than they might otherwise if it happens to be from a mfgr. that has a superior track record as opposed to one that doesn't. I have no problem with this, but we probably also need to understand that sooner or later all things change and that as all cars are improving from a reliability standpoint,that this (reliability) may eventually become a non-factor especially for those of us that usually buy our cars new. It wasn't all that long ago that a car was deemed junk at 50 or 60k (and generally was), nowadays that's barely broken in...
#3481 of 18437 Okay guys
Jul 18, 2007 (2:54 pm)
Let's be sure to keep the focus on the cars themselves, please...
#3482 of 18437 Re: I'm a Former Honda Owner [bhmr59]
Jul 18, 2007 (4:37 pm)
It's not all that hard to understand at all. Having to take a car back to the dealer for warranty service a half dozen or so times is easily accomplished when your dealing with a service department that leaves a little to be desired. Also, they never stock any parts, even for the Accord.
So thats 2 visits for one thing, and if that one thing goes wrong twice, that's 4 visits already!!! You can reach 6 to 8 visits easy. The reason I still consider HOnda's to be bulletproof are many:
1) It was a first year model and not built in Japan
2) The japanese built/assembled Civics we've had have been bulletproof and required no return visits, thats is 0 visits.
3) It was for things like window moldings rippling and wrinkling and a powerseat that functioned but "bumped" a tad bit at the end of its "track." I'm picky.
4) It had two rattle sources to deal with.
These are forgiveable offenses; what isn't forgiveable are things that leave you stranded because the car won't start (never happened with any Honda) or things that cost you money you shouldn't have to spend (Honda steps up if something does go wrong, even after warranty).
So Hip hip hooray for Honda! But, alas... I did go with a German car, and I might not have if the Accord had been perfect rather than near perfect.
#3483 of 18437 Re: The ACTUAL subject at hand... [mz6greyghost]
Jul 18, 2007 (5:38 pm)
After discussion over dinner, and reviewing the online offers from a couple different Nissan dealers, we decided to get the 2.5S
Excellent choice. I checked it out at the dealer too when buying my weekend beater, an 06 Frontier, a few months ago. The interior is much nicer and I love the looks of the car. Nissan got it right again. They build a great product.
#3484 of 18437 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1]
Jul 18, 2007 (5:44 pm)
I think I posted the same kind of comments about Saturn the other day. 2008 will be a big year for GM - the new CTS,Malibu etc. Let's review these cars in 2012 and see what we come up with, but GM's track record for so many years has been above average, which doesn't seem to cut it when there are so many excellents out there.