Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1220221223225226742

Comments

  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    Both need to be updated.

    Good point. I agree.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I agree, the new Taurus/Sable have pretty nice interiors, but the Fusions seem to use lower grade materials.

    My mother in law has a 2004 Maxima, and it is not all that nice either. Her previous Maxima (1998) had nicer materials and build quality.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    My mother in law has a 2004 Maxima, and it is not all that nice either. Her previous Maxima (1998) had nicer materials and build quality.

    Yep, my buddy's '97 (same car you mom-in-law's '98) is a base model, but has quality that is dang good, especially considering it's age.

    It isn't all that great ergonomically, especially with that tiny fan speed knob, but it has no major flaws in fit or finish. It DOES have one flaw otherwise though; it's a horrible camel color that is somewhere between tan and yellow. In the brochure for 1997, I believe the color choices were black, grey, and blaeksch (the sound made when viewing the color).

    I have driven the car once or twice and noticed it has steering lighter than any vehicle I've ever piloted. It was accurate enough, but very VERY light and quite numb as well.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    but the Fusions seem to use lower grade materials.

    What is your point of reference? S, SE or SEL trims? Camel with fake wood or black/light stone with piano black trim?

    There is a big difference between a S or SE Camel interior vs. a SEL in black or light stone with the piano black accents.

    Check out the 2009 Flex (which is a step-up from the Taurus/Sable interiors) for a better clue as to the future Fusion interiors.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I believe they are base 4 cyl's with a carbon fiber like dash trim. I think the interior's are gray or black? We also have one V6 in Red with a beige interior with leather and larger alloy wheels.

    They are all out right now, so I cannot confirm what models they are.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    alright, so what car company overall has the best reliability/interior.

    personally the new accord's interior looks massively cluttered. if i had a choice now i'd buy an "optioned up" 07 for the price of an 08.

    The camry is definitely out of the question after my experience with it.

    Never owned a VW before. I just presumed that they were reliable because i see all those old VW bugs and "hippie vans" (dont know what they're called) still driving around.
  • Never owned a VW before. I just presumed that they were reliable because i see all those old VW bugs and "hippie vans" (dont know what they're called) still driving around.

    Don't confuse durability with reliability.

    Also, those cars were more related to lawnmowers in their complexity, where as now they are more like aircraft.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,534
    >i see all those old VW bugs and "hippie vans" (dont know what they're called) still driving around.

    In old days they had to stop along the road to adjust the valves if they drove their bug very far.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    how about Saab's?
  • Same boat...my uncle loves them, he put like 200k on a 900s, then got a newer 900 T, then got a 9-3 and just got another 9-3. They feel like little vaults. Both 900s got new manual transmissions, haven't heard much about the 9-3s.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    so i just got a copy of the new consumer reports *cough*notINhardCOPY :)*cough*. CR recommends the new passat. does very well in reliability. have a look.

    http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5839/passatqm9.jpg

    copy paste the link, tall picture, didnt want to clutter the forums.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for the post. Sounds like the Passat most people buy and can afford, the 2.0L, is "much lower" in reliability according to CR. That's a shame.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    Well i think you can say that for all kinds of cars. Usually the more expensive version of the car is more reliable. for the jetta CR says "Reliability of the turbo and turbodiesel has been average." then it goes on to say the 2.5 liter i5 sucks.

    Both 2.0T's in the A3 and A4 recieved "average" rating by CR.

    I mean here's how i see it. People who buy base model cars sometimes dont keep their cars in as good condition as people who buy the more expensive version. Sort of like the Chvey v Buick example. If you know you spend 38k on your car you're gonna baby it for a long time versus spending 20k on your car. See where i'm going with this? Honestly though, i believe if you take care of the car it'll last, american, german, japanese, korean. If you take good care of it, it'll take good care of you. Granted, japanese models seem to care less about getting cared for.

    edit: if you want me to look up ratings just post asking for them and i'll put them up asap.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Posting the ratings won't be necessary, but I actually carry a different viewpoint on the ratings. I feel like people who don't have lots of money to drop on a new car will take care of the one they do have. My grandmother could buy and sell me, but doesn't really take care of her car. I am in college, and in the career path I'm in don't look forward to lots of money right off the bat, so I'm babying my car to make it last for many miles.

    An interesting note, the Camry V6 is more unreliable than the 4-cylinder. This is heavily due to the transmission issue though, I presume.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    So the 2.0T is more reliable when installed in a Jetta than when it is installed in a Passat :confuse: .

    I'd need to see some proof that the more expensive versions are normally more reliable. I tend to think that the cars owned by younger buyers (eg. Jetta) get lower reliability because those buyers tend to be more unreliable than older folks in terms of how they maintain and drive them.

    To get back to the midsize category, the three that appear to have the most younger buyers are Altima, Mazda6, and Legacy. These have, respectively, 37%, 39%, and 46% in the 16-35 age range, according to JD Power.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Posts: 936
    What is a "Legacy"? :confuse:
  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    Prior to the acquisition of our family's present cars, Accord, Elantra, and Camry in that order, we drove (and, in one case, still drive) SAABs. I've never owned a new primarily GM-influenced SAAB, but rather the old Classic 900 SAABs - a 1985 900 (which is still a daily driver) and a 1987 900S. Built like a tank and very, very durable. Reliability? This depends on the owner, and preventive maintenance. In the case of our 1985 900, its power train (both engine and transmission) is still going strong, and does not burn any oil. The only thing that seems to keep me under the car is replacing the exhaust system - about once every 5 years, and front brake pads, otherwise it's very reliable. No head gasket problems or timing chain problems either. And, FWIW, the parts cost on the SAAB are cheaper than our old Grand Caravan or any of the current Asian cars!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    It's a mid size sedan, of course...Subaru Legacy
  • bug4bug4 Posts: 370
    SAAB parts cheaper than Dodge or Asian models??? I have little experience with SAABs other than a friend who had to replace a radiator, a front head-light and a key FOB on a year 2000 model. I don't know exact prices, but the radiator cost 2-3 times as much as a Honda radiator, the headlight was outrageously expensive and the key FOB was something like $300.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    If you read the article, it says the V6 Passat is recommended by CR. The 2.0T's reliability is "much lower" than that of the V6, thus CR can't recommend it yet. That is the same thing CR said in their April auto issue, and what I noted in my earlier post.
  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    Yes, parts for either my 1985 900 8-valve or 1987 900S 16-valve are (or, were in the case of the 900S) far cheaper than my Dodge Grand Caravan or either of my Honda, Hyundai, or Toyota. You just have to know where to buy them, and that is certainly not the dealer.

    The best place by far to buy OEM SAAB parts is www.thesaabsite.com - they purchase OEM SAAB parts directly from the OEM supplier. For example, when buying a tail light lens from them, the box will say Hella (the OEM manufacturer) rather than SAAB. And, $131 for a new non-turbo CAT, as compared to over $600 from a SAAB dealer. But, you can also buy a Walker direct fit CAT from Advance Auto Parts for less than $75.

    The headlight for my '85 SAAB 900 is a standard halogen lamp assy. - not just the bulb - the entire headlamp. Its cost is around $11 from Wal-Mart or any of other discount auto supply houses. And, no fancy key FOB or keyless entry, just a plain old key which can be duplicated for around $10.

    When I first became a SAAB and Volvo owner, they were not perceived as they are today. This was before both marques went "up market" so to speak. Back in the '60s and '70s, buying either was analogous to buying a Chevy or Ford. Heck my '85 900 cost $12,100, including TTL in April 1985.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Interesting comparison of the midsize 2008 Honda Accord and 2008 Acura RL.
    Accord vs. RL

    Accord is actually larger both outside and inside.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    Thats why those cars (altima, mazda 6,excluding the legacy) have lower reliabilities. Younger people drive their cars harder, they are under experienced and abuse their cars more. Now the Legacy is geared towards gear heads. Young gear heads know what they're doing and when they buy a legacy they usually add mods to it etc. They know how to care for a car properly.

    I think reliability depends on the engine itself, how the car is driven, and how the car is cared for. Car's like camry's and accords are bought my family men/women. They drive the car normally. Cars like the Mazda 6 and Altima are a little more "sporty". In return younger age groups who tend to be insensible buy these cars and drive them like ferrari's, thus causing it to get lower reliability ratings.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    Honestly though, i believe if you take care of the car it'll last, american, german, japanese, korean. If you take good care of it, it'll take good care of you. Granted, japanese models seem to care less about getting cared for.

    I'd love for you to cancel that belief after driving a Chrysler made product around for awhile. Then you will say that perhaps American cars (or at least Chrysler cars) don't care how much you care for them, they will screw you anyways.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    Thats why those cars (altima, mazda 6,excluding the legacy) have lower reliabilities. Younger people drive their cars harder, they are under experienced and abuse their cars more.

    Really now???? :surprise: :( I have to disagree with your assumptions, as I have real-life real-world experience that tells otherwise.

    My close friend got a new Geo Prizm (toyota corolla with Geo emblem vehicle) in the fall of 1994. No teenager ever drove a car harder or more abusive than him. He drove it harder than anyone has ever driven a Ferrari (which are probably mostly babied by old rich men). He drove it like a drag strip race car everywhere he went. He floored the thing everywhere he went. It wasn't a particularly fast car, so flooring it everywhere he went wasn't really going all that fast, but he'd definitely cruise along the highways at 90 MPH traffic allowing.

    This is far worse than your typical teen male driver, those who tend to drive their cars hard. However, the fault of an unreliable car is not in the way it is driven, but in the poor engineering, design, and build quality (how it was put together). No car should require care beyond that typically specified in the owner's manual for regular maintenance. Now putting it in reverse while going 40 MPH forward is another case of abuse not relevant here. If you can do it, then the car should be able to handle it.

    Case in point, that Corolla clone was indestructible, bulletproof, and built like a tank, extremely well-built and put together. Nothing could bring it down, not even rear-ending a Mercedes at significant speed at 100K miles or so (because he got it repaired). It had an automatic transmission too.

    Either way, he reached 100,000 miles without having to spend a dime on unscheduled maintenance or repairs (not related to damage from minor dings, dents, skirmishes, fights, horseplay). The car was flawless. I believe he sold it to another friend who kept it for a long time after (lost track now).

    I purchased a domestic vehicle and babied it (in comparison to him) and maintained it supremely, but I was spending major dollars approximately quarterly (yes, that's 4 times a year).

    I drove my 2003 Honda just as hard as my domestic from when I was younger (if not harder since the Honda was 10X faster and more powerful), and I didn't have any problems outside of the known tranny issue. I didn't feel like racing my Honda every weekend would have any detrimental affect on it. If it's destiny was to go 400,000 miles, then it didn't matter if it was done at 100 MPH or 50 MPH. The car simply showed no weaknesses.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,534
    >I think reliability depends on the engine itself, how the car is driven, and how the car is cared for.

    CR and JD Powers show there is little difference in the problem numbers among many cars these days. It goes back to how it's cared for. Some have certain brands and do all the extra and scheduled service and then talk about how they have no problems. Of course not, it's been well-serviced.

    People also have selective memories when they love their car or their brand.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    The collision speed in a rear-end accident is measured by the relative speed (or speed differential) of the two vehicles.

    If you friend was driving 80 mph and read-ended a Mercedes driving 75 mph, the impact would be less than that of someone driving at 15 mph into a stationary object.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    you're absolutely right. i agree older models last longer, they were built better, thats what this whole discussion is about- how newer cars aren't quite as good as the old ones (not technologically speaking). Today though, i think all cars are essentially the same. All cars, except a few, are built by mindless robots. Toyota and honda have managed to figure out how to coax the robots into making a better product.
  • pengwinpengwin Posts: 74
    on a slightly different note, check this out, scion tC has a "v-4"!!!!

    http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4813/v4gv0.jpg

    This week's newsweek. Gotta love typo's.
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    I'd love for you to cancel that belief after driving a Chrysler made product around for awhile. Then you will say that perhaps American cars (or at least Chrysler cars) don't care how much you care for them, they will screw you anyways.

    I certainly hope not. We have three Chrysler vehicles in our immediate family and we hope to get many more years of relatively trouble-free service from them.

    Our Chrysler loyalty dates back to 1998. My wife has been enjoying her '03 turbo Cruiser for 5 years. Our '99 Viper still gets my heart pounding the same way it did when I first brought it home.

    My Sebring I just purchased last month has been a total joy to drive around with all of its gadgets and things to play with. It's covered by a lifetime powertrain warranty if something big should ever break.

    Finally, I bought my mom a 300C Hemi for Christmas two years ago. She's been all smiles and no problems with it.

    Sorry to hear you've apparently had a bad experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.