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
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 13, 2009 12:45 pm) I test drove a Focus and I would need to go on a diet to drive a car that small :0 Maybe that's part of the government plan 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 13, 2009 2:39 pm) Quick! Name ONE automaker who will warranty an automatic transmission beyond 100K miles with no strings or loopholes or service/inspection requirements or extra warranty expense. Answer: NONE. I think 105K is within the range of normal lifespan for an automatic transmission. I'm rather surprised anyone would expect factory help beyond that point. That's $2500 expense over 10 years of use or $250 a year in repairs. Not bad. re: "future classics" -- I have to laugh at that argument, too. As if people are trading in their Shelbys for a $4500 voucher. I think the media often confuses "classic" with "plain old car".
|
|
|
Having a transmission go out when it's 8 years old is far different than one going out at 4 to 5 years of age. I could live with 8 years of service. Not even Goverment Motors will cover a tranny failure at 5 years and 1 day even if you only have 1 mile on it. Now Hyundai, there's a real car company with a real Warranty; it would be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Jul 13, 2009 3:25 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Jul 13, 2009 3:25 pm) Quality did improve and the decision to have that long warranty probably saved them. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 13, 2009 3:30 pm) I was pointing out that Hyundai covers it even up to 10 years old or 100K miles, so both mileage and age matter. Another extreme case, a car that is one year old with 100K miles wouldn't generally be expected to be covered. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 13, 2009 3:25 pm) http://www.odysseytransmission.com/ What I really want to know is that the Mazda salesman says he will hold the car I want and do the C4C on the 24th if I give him the title to the "clunker". If I don't sign the back of the title I can't get into any trouble doing this can I? |
|
|
Replying to: 100chuck (Jul 13, 2009 3:09 pm) The Focus is on our Clunker list too, but we really are thinking we need a hatchback. I have this mental picture of myself as being mostly of average height and weight, but maybe it's the minivan that's been fooling my self image. 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 13, 2009 3:25 pm) Well, I'd be pissed if I had my automatic tranny go out at 105K miles, simply because I know they were capable of better than that 40 years ago. But I wouldn't expect any help from the manufacturer at that point. Still, if I went from a '68 Dart that blew its tranny around 242K miles only because the previous owner rebuilt and hopped up the engine, to a '79 Newport that needed a rebuild at 230K, to an '89 Gran Fury copcar that still had a good tranny at 118K when I got rid of it, only to have my 2000 Intrepid crap out at 105K, yeah, I'd be miffed. Thankfully I'm at 147K, and it's doing just fine. And I'll admit, I was mildly amused when the tranny on my Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima crapped itself at 35K miles. But Nissan covered it under warranty, and I think that car has around 300,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has more than made up for #1. Heck, even the crappy THM200C in my old 1980 Malibu was still doing well at 110,000 miles, and those things were infamous for early failure. The service manual had the cajones to call for a 100,000 mile service interval for the fluid, which is probably why many of them failed! We usually did that thing every year. Which makes me wonder...perhaps one reason automatics might be prone to failure these days is BECAUSE of those long intervals? My Intrepid specifies 100K for "regular" service and 50K for "severe" service (i.e., most types of driving). I just bite the bullet and do it every 30K. I've also had an '85 LeSabre that had 157K on its original tranny when we got rid of it, and an '86 Monte Carlo that made it to 192K when I wrecked it. Both of those were bought new by family members and passed down to me, so I know their history, and that they were on their original trannies. My '85 Silverado, also bought new by my Granddad, has about 130,000 miles on it. Oddly, the one premature tranny failure I had was in an '82 Cutlass Supreme, and it had the "good" tranny... a THM350C, rather than the lightweight 200. Even here though, it wasn't a total failure. It started holding the gears too long, and the shop said they could fix it for $150, but couldn't guarantee that the problem wouldn't resurface within a year, or just rebuild it for around $675. Well stupid me, I thought I'd have that car for a long time, so I went for the rebuild. And about 8-9 months later, the engine lost its oil pressure.  And also in this car's defense, I bought it used, 11 years old, 61,000 miles, for $800. So for all I know, it could have been neglected, and may have never been changed! Heck, I have an old Nova brochure that mentions the service interval for the THM350 at 60K intervals! But in my limited experience, any transmission worth a damn isn't going to fail within 100-105K miles! I have heard that elsewhere though, that these days you really are lucky if you get 100K out of a modern tranny. They build them lighter and to tighter tolerances, in the interests of fuel economy, and so they sap as little power from the engine as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 13, 2009 5:57 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
