You are here: Forums Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0

Midsize Sedans 2.0

13142 messages,  Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 7:34 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, Car Comparisons, Sedan

#3477 of 13142 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1] by dieselone Jul 18, 2007 (1:03 pm)
Replying to: mfletou1 (Jul 18, 2007 12:46 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 13142 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1] by benderofbows Jul 18, 2007 (1:26 pm)
Replying to: mfletou1 (Jul 18, 2007 10:11 am) 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 13142 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1] by captain2 Jul 18, 2007 (1:42 pm)
Replying to: mfletou1 (Jul 18, 2007 12:46 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 13142 Okay guys by pat HOST Jul 18, 2007 (1:54 pm)
Let's be sure to keep the focus on the cars themselves, please...
#3482 of 13142 Re: I'm a Former Honda Owner [bhmr59] by andres3 Jul 18, 2007 (3:37 pm)
Replying to: bhmr59 (Jul 13, 2007 5:51 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 13142 Re: The ACTUAL subject at hand... [mz6greyghost] by goodegg Jul 18, 2007 (4:38 pm)
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Jul 18, 2007 4:02 am) 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 13142 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [mfletou1] by goodegg Jul 18, 2007 (4:44 pm)
Replying to: mfletou1 (Jul 18, 2007 10:11 am) 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.
#3485 of 13142 Re: Aura owners? [tjc78] by andres3 Jul 18, 2007 (4:52 pm)
Replying to: tjc78 (Jul 17, 2007 11:29 am) Yes, but if it comes with equal or better fuel economy why wouldn't you want it?   My sentiments exactly!!!   Why would I pay X amount of dollars for 200 HP and 30 MPG when I can get (for about the same amount of money) 250 HP and 31 MPG? It's a tough sell.   You have to do a X-$$$ equation to get it to be considered by anyone paying attention.
#3486 of 13142 Re: The problem with the Saturn... [urnews] by andres3 Jul 18, 2007 (5:09 pm)
Replying to: urnews (Jul 18, 2007 10:47 am) For me, buying a car is not like buying stocks, but more like a well researched diversified investment.   There is traceable accurate history on all makes and models. And history shows certain companies to be quite dependable, reliable, and consistant.   This is shown for years and years, and can therefore lead to solid predictions. It is sort of like a batter that hits for a .330+ average 10 years in a row. Do you really think in year 11 he's going to hit under .300? Replies to this message: akirby (Jul 18, 2007 6:03 pm) goodegg (Jul 18, 2007 6:16 pm) akirby (Jul 19, 2007 4:49 am) and 9 more... captain2 (Jul 19, 2007 9:52 am) andres3 (Jul 20, 2007 10:21 am) captain2 (Jul 20, 2007 12:21 pm)

You are here: Forums Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0