Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

13323333353373381029

Comments

  • 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: 5,284
    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: 5,284
    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: 17,727
    >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.

    This message has been approved.

  • 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.
  • motownusamotownusa Posts: 836
    Unfortunately, your experience with Chrysler is the exception and not the norm. My dad's 87 Dodge Aries K car was a piece of dogpile. That car would break down without a single warning. That was our first and last Chrysler product. Poor quality is obe big reason ( the other being heavily dependent on trucks and SUV's ) Chrysler is in deep trouble.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Good grief - a 1987 anything was crappy by today's standards. You don't think Dodge has improved any since 1987?
  • Unfortunately, your experience with Chrysler is the exception and not the norm. My dad's 87 Dodge Aries K car was a piece of dogpile. That car would break down without a single warning. That was our first and last Chrysler product. Poor quality is obe big reason ( the other being heavily dependent on trucks and SUV's ) Chrysler is in deep trouble.

    Our '83 Reliant sucked (although it was at least in part to a thirsty Mistubishi engine...doors falling off, door handles falling off, hubcaps flying off, bad roof welds, poor power windows, etc), but the '89 Grand Voyager was great. Three kids learned to drive in that van. It had 2 failures, both covered by 7/70 (trans, steering rack). The vehicle was traded w/150k or so. Chrysler and I are good, the redeemed themselves on that van. I had a 2007 Caravan as a rental in Hawaii and it felt more/less the same (not a bad thing to me). The dash was a bit of a disappointment w/mismatched colors and textures, but no worse than my '07 Accord.

    The '89 Mitsu Galant was fantastic, although it used a 2.0l FI motor vs a 60's tech 2.6l carb truck motor like the Reliant.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    People also have selective memories when they love their car or their brand.
    generally agree with this - for most of us a car is our 2nd biggest investment so therefore, human nature and our egos will want to think that we each made good decisions on a car we purchase. On the flip side of this is when a car really does perform below expectations and those memories will stick with us forever - there is nothing worse than having to make payments on a car that's in the shop.
    That all said, statistics indicate that very few of us new car buyers keep a car long enough that we should have any real serious problems with it. If we limit reliability evaluations to the 3/4 years and 50/60k that most new car buyers/leasers keep any brand car then, of course, the 'buyer' should really expect no mechanical difficulties and/or is covered by warranty (which the buyer obviously tends to forgive for some reason). A number of us, plan to and do tend to keep cars well into triple digits (200k or so) and therefore for 8 or 10 years, a point at which a manufacturer's real ability to produce something better
    is tested. First year or 'initial' quality studies mean nothing IMO simply because it ought to be good and the folks that do these kind of 'studies' are effectively paid for their results anyway. Show me what something does 10 years down the road ( well after the warranty expires). This means a lot. A favorable record in that regard is still heavily biased towards those mfgrs. with names ending in a vowel. If the buyer of an older car is looking for something for his kid's first car - it will likely be a "Japanese" brand if reliability is a primary consideration, and conversely be an "American" brand if cost is a primary consideration. This has been true, for a reason, for maybe 20 years or so. And now magically I'm supposed to spend 25 large because I believe what somebody like JDP says? Show me a Fusion, for example, that is 10 years old and has held up as well as that mid 90s Accord or Camry and then maybe I'll give it a fair shot at my 25 grand! So yes it will be several years before those 'American' mfgrs. see any of my money, at which point, then I have to decide how important it is to me that I support our Canadian/Mexican/Chinese friends or some fellow Americans.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    They sure hadn't by 1996, when we gave Chrysler a second chance after our 1994 was a dealer-queen (it was there for 2 of the 8 months total we owned it because they couldn't fix the problems). The 1996 needed a suspension rebuild and a transmission by 35k miles. We learned out lesson.

    TWICE bitten, four times as shy?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It doesn’t matter to me if Chrysler have actually improved the reliability aspect of their cars, the fact is, the cars themselves leave a lot to be desired. While I have been impressed by the dynamics of 300 given the size of the car, fuel economy and engine refinement have sucked, and I don’t feel the need to have Hemi to feel good about the engine, the 3.5/V6 that I have gotten in rental 300’s can be a lot better.

    The lesser cars have trimmings and fittings that I can’t stand inside. Even when looked from outside. My last extended experience with a (2007) Stratus was not a good one. I drove it for about 3000 miles, with virtually all of it on freeway. 26-27 mpg was it, while the engine lacked passing power, refinement and the car was terrible handling cross winds at higher speeds.

    Just a few hundred miles later, I was repenting having not gone for Accord, which would have been the first time I had managed to spot one, but didn’t go to save $10/day as Avis considered it an upgrade over Stratus. That was to save me about $50 over five days. But with that fuel economy in Stratus, and given that my experience with Accord has always gotten 32-33 mpg under those situations, the Honda would have made up for the premium. Given the choices again, I know it won’t be the Dodge, much less when it comes to actually buying one.

    I am not surprised at all Chrysler has become a huge player in rental fleets. I do like their minivans though, but again, they go against two excellent ones: Odyssey and Sienna.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    a 1987 anything was crappy by today's standards - given the 'by today's standards' caveat perhaps - but this is also a very relative thing. That Dodge was (and maybe still is) a whole lot less then what the 'Japanese' were producing at the time. It is this fact that 'gave' the domestic car market to the Japanese in the mid late 80s and early 90s.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Perhaps a better way to look at the situation would be, to list three reasons to choose a new Chrysler Sebring over Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion, Saturn Aura or Hyundai Sonata. In other words, what makes that car better than these others?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    The only point was that you can't judge a 2008 vehicle by what a company made in 1987 or even 1996.

    I was not implying anything about current Chrysler reliability or desirability.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I'm not implying anything necessarily about the Sebring either, but what I did say is that whatever quality differences there are, are certainly relative to those cars available at same time whether that vintage be 2008 or 1987. If the market perceives the current Sebring to have the same quality related issues relative to let's say an Accord, then nothing has really changed because back in 87 that was true comparing a 'K' car to an Accord. And many contend that the 'K' (and the minivan takeoff of the 'K') is largely what 'saved' Chrysler back then, and they sold Camcord-esque numbers of them (300-400000/year). But the quality difference even back then is why the American mfgrs. 'lost' the sedan business, it wasn't because the Japanese cars were any cheaper, they were simply better. The fact that an '87 car from any mfgr. is not as good as a 2008 version is a tribute largely to technology and doesn't really have anything to do with Chrysler, in this case, improving their cars - of course, they have - but so has everybody else.
Sign In or Register to comment.