Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

11561571591611621028

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Points well taken, also part of it is that far too many buyers make these decisions based on payment size - something along the lines of walking into a dealer, with that car on their mind, as you say - and after some sticker shock will skip any preliminaries and directly ask the salesman (or this may be his first question) something like 'what can I get for $500.00/month?'. The answer to that question is, of course, almost anything, if you have reasonable credit and let the dealer work its 'magic'.
    A really big mistake IMO as the real price of anything is what it costs in cash. Giving the dealer the opportunity to 'play' with any multitude of 'financing' arrangements or (even worse) lease plans is nothing more than asking to get screwed. If I run into a salesman at a dealer that does ask me how much I want to pay a month initially, I will simply walk out!
    Thereafter the buyer's remorse you mention, simply because that buyer has no idea what he really paid for his car, only that he got his 500 buck payment, and a few years later is hit with some sort of refinance (or lease 'buyout') balloon or is paying some outrageous interest rate over a too long term on too high a price etc. etc. Again a hard concept for someone like me to understand - negotiate a cash deal (no trades or 'special' financing), that being the true cost of the car, and then go from there if you must.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    I've heard that from other people as well about the Saab 9-3. I'd like to see how they are to drive since most people seem to say it is a performance oriented sedan. So, I wonder how much they sell for? I remember either summer of last year or the year before when GM was having their fire sale, the Saab's were being discounted heavily and I almost got the 9-2x aero (the turbo one) but by the time I got serious, they were sold out in my area. What do you think of the suspension and tranny on the 9-3? regardless, thanks for the insight...
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I don't remember the numbers right now, anyone can check them, but the price shown on TCO and TMV were different. Other variable costs in TCO were auite questionable also.

    The TCO purcahase price includes taxes and fees and "typical" options.

    But besides that, there is a difference in the TMV used in the TCO and the TMV you get when you go through the edmunds pricing function. For example the Accord SE TMV is about $600 lower in the TCO, while the Mazda6 SVE is about $100 higher in the TCO.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    that assumes that they would want a Mazda6 in the first place... but for those who want a fun to drive car that has an expressive personality and is priced very competitively, it may be worth considering.

    Yeah, I did not buy one because it was cheaper, that was just gravy :) .

    Just out of my own curiosity I did my own TCO, assuming I paid invoice price minus rebate (not even considering the much greater discount that I actually got). I used edmunds numbers for repair and maintenance costs. I adjusted fuel costs to reflect the amount I drive. I used edmunds figures for expected value after 5 years. I assumed no significant difference in insurance cost, because I know in my case there would not be a significant difference. As I am a cash buyer, I estimated what I would earn (after tax) on the amount saved by purchasing a 6.

    For me this adjusted TCO came up with the Mazda6 being cheaper than the Accord by about 3 cents per mile. This shows how much things can vary when you look at your own individual circumstances, since the generic figues had the Accord at 3 cents per mile less than the Mazda6.

    Now, since 3 cents per mile one way or the other amounts to about $20 per month for me, this would not be enough of a difference to push me one way or the other anyway.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    Okay okay, so Honda doesn't have the market cornered with excellent vehicles. But when you compare an Accord to some of the worst stuff a company like say (Chrysler) is making, then it is very easy to start saying the Honda is twice as good and doubly superior.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    Would you become passionate about Honda if I offered to pay for all of your "unexpected maintenance/repair" costs on any Honda you purchase for the first 100,000 miles for 50% of what the Honda dealer will do it for? (the Honda care extended warranty program; usually around 1.4K after negotiating)?

    I'm giving you half off!!!
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    Would you become passionate about Honda if I offered to pay for all of your "unexpected maintenance/repair" costs on any Honda you purchase for the first 100,000 miles for 50% of what the Honda dealer will do it for? (the Honda care extended warranty program; usually around 1.4K after negotiating)?

    Considering that my wife's Neon is over 107K miles, and I haven't even come close to sinking $1400 in it for repairs, then I would've been at least $1K for NO reason. So no, I wouldn't become passionate. In fact, I'd think they're scam artists (since most "extended" warranties turn out to be a scam anyway).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I hear ya. There hasn't been $1,400 spent on my old Accord either, and it got 174k miles. Lots of people from all makes likely have stories like ours.

    Have I spent money on some repairs? Sure, but at 100k miles, the only repairs were done under an extended emissions warranty (due to a recall in 1996 Accords). It needed a new Oxygen sensor.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    Trust me, I wasn't planning on making a penny less than $700 profit off of my "offer."

    Heck, I'll offer 60% off!

    :P ;)
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Those TCO figures can be so far from reality.

    For our '07 Sonata SE purchased in February: TCO says purchase price (before DMV fees, etc) is $20,855, we paid $16651. TCO says 1st year financing (with 10%) down = $1343, our 13.7% down shows our HMFC financing at $851 (the extra $700 down is NOT saving us $500 interest in the first year). The insurance, with 300K liability & UM, 5,000 medical, and $200 deductible comprehensive & $500 collision deductible is $400 less than TCO projects.

    TCO says the expected resale of this car after one year will be $15,195. If this is accurate, the 1st year deprecication would be $1,456, not the $6272 shown in TCO.

    Take the TCO with a grain of salt. As jeffyscott said, your actual purchase price will greatly affect your TCO.
  • oldcemoldcem Posts: 309
    Whoa - my friend. Our last 6 Chryslers lasted longer than our last 3 Hondas did. My old boss used to brag about the reliability of his high mileage Accord (Had about 200K on it) until it caught fire and burned on the interstate one morning. Guess it was equipped with the Viking funeral option package.

    Regards;
    OldCEM
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Would you become passionate about Honda if I offered to pay for all of your "unexpected maintenance/repair" costs on any Honda you purchase for the first 100,000 miles for 50% of what the Honda dealer will do it for? (the Honda care extended warranty program; usually around 1.4K after negotiating)?


    How about you just reimburse me for the repairs to our '96 Civic and we'll call it even? :shades: That would be somewhere in the range of $500-$700 that you owe me. Probalby closer to $500. We sold it with just over 40k miles on the odo and I can find the second owner if you want to reimburse him for his repair costs too. ;)

    Seriously though, my answer is no. I tried to like Honda's vehicles but just can't. I found that I just can't become passionate about a vehicle that has no passion to me. I'm very passionate about my Mustang but it is an American icon so not many people wouldn't be. I was passionate about my Mazda6 too because it was, simply put, an amazing car. Our Explorer? Well, I'm not so passionate about it because it is very much like a Honda in that it is an appliance which is how I see them.

    Also, that Civic was the highest mileage vehicle we've ever owned. We usually lease or trade up after 2 or 3 years. Yeah, it's stupid financially but I like cars a lot and it's my money. :P So you'd never sell me on that reimbursement plan anyway.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    I was bored and decided to play with the EPA's new mileage estimates. I compared a 2008 FWD Taurus with a 2007 Accord V6 ATX and a 2007 Camry V6 ATX. Engines are 3.5L V6, 3.0L V6, and 3.5L V6 respectively. Trannies are 6sp, 5sp, and 6sp respectively. The Taurus and Camry have nearly equal HP while the Accord is short about 20 horses.

    EPA estimates for the three are 18/28, 18/26, and 19/28 respectively. The Taurus is the heaviest and the Accord is the lightest IIRC.

    For reference I threw in an Acura TL 3.5L V6 5sp ATX to see how the Honda 3.5L favored because it is supposedly similar to the new V6 for the Accord as we've talked about. It has roughly 20 more horses than the Taurus and Camry in terms of power and its weight falls somewhere in between the two. EPA estimates are 17/26.

    So I'm guessing we're not to expect great things fromt he Accord V6 when it comes to gas mileage? Cylinder deactivation should help a little I'm sure. But from what I understand based on other mfrs who have implemented it, including Honda in the Odyssey, it's only useful on long straight highways where you can just cruise along. I don't live anywhere near those types of roads so I surely wouldn't pay extra for that technology.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    So I'm guessing we're not to expect great things fromt the Accord V6 when it comes to gas mileage?
    a spot where we will differ, any car that logically should run in the low 6s (high 5s?) 0-60 and still return something like 30 mpg on the highway and well into the 20s all around, gets my vote for 'great' gas mileage. We do after all have those 4 bangers for those willing to trade that extra performance for a mpg or two or three, don't we?
    Chrysler (and GM) both claim a 10% increase in overall FE with the 'variable displacement' systems they put on their gas hog V8s and I have observed the same thing you talk about, the inability of the cars to even hold anything close to current highway speeds on 4 cylinders. Would imagine it would be even less effective trying to get a 3400 lb. sedan to do the same given the lesser displacements (and torque) of the V6s. Think the real answers are right in front of us, OHC engines with intelligent control systems that maximize engine efficiency in almost all conditions and I wouldn't bet that Honda won't be able to take it to a next level above what Toyota has already done.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I wonder why the FWD Lincoln MKZ with the 3.5L V6 is rated at 17/25...1 city and 3 highway less than the Taurus :confuse: .
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    I can think of a few reasons. The MKZ still uses the Aisin 6 speed tranny instead of the new 6F joint venture tranny that the Taurus, Edge and MKX use. The 6F is supposed to be more fuel efficient. Not sure if the MKZ gets the 6F for 08 - I hope so. I also think they've had longer to tune the 3.5L in the Taurus for fuel economy now that Bill Ford is no longer in charge and emphasizing emissions over FE. If that's the case I would expect the 08 MKZ to have improved FE.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    a possibility that the 'new' 3.5 is really nothing more than a bored/stroked 3.0? The car based MKX and Edge SUVs have been reviewed poorly recently by both CR and MT in comparisons, lack of engine efficiency and refinement both problems apparently. In especially the Lincoln, while noted for the good power you, would think think that Ford would've 'tuned out' (or isolated) that trademark DT harshness...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Whoa - my friend. Our last 6 Chryslers lasted longer than our last 3 Hondas did.

    Interesting. Our experience with Chrysler would show that 6 Chryslers might have the combined lifespan of 3 Hondas! I'm at 174k miles on the '96 Accord, and it hasn't stranded me yet. Has it needed some repairs? Of course. Any car with that many miles will, even so-called "perfect" Honda. I've spent about $1,000 in the last five years on three repairs. Not perfect, but not bad at all in my eyes.

    We got burned once in 1994, and in an act of stupidity, bought another one in 1996. BOTH proved to be garage-queens, with one vehicle needing a suspension rebuild, and both having transmission issues keeping them in the shop for not multiple days, but instead weeks.

    And, the lucky for us, the cars were so new, they never got out of their warranty (the '94 LeBaron Convertible had less than 20k miles and was traded 8 months after purchase on a 95 Civic. The '96 Sebring was sold at 35k miles because my folks knew they couldn't afford the car once in ran out of warranty - they came back to Honda the second and final time). They don't limit their shopping choices to Honda (nor do I), but they do boycott Chrysler, even 10 years later.

    And, "Viking Funeral Package" lol ;)
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    a possibility that the 'new' 3.5 is really nothing more than a bored/stroked 3.0?

    There's a good bit more to it than that but I don't know all the details off hand. Some reviews I've read of the Taurus have praised the low engine noise levels so maybe the D35 has been tweaked over the last year.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    a spot where we will differ, any car that logically should run in the low 6s (high 5s?) 0-60 and still return something like 30 mpg on the highway and well into the 20s all around, gets my vote for 'great' gas mileage.

    I don't differ with you on that but I don't see Honda increasing the mpg numbers over what they are for the competition that's all. Claims have been made in this thread that they will increase those numbers (thus saving the planet :P ) and I'm a bit skeptical if you can't tell. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.