Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

13713723743763771028

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I don't think A/C vents in the rear are necessary in a car. With the middle dash vents pointed toward the center rear the air easily circulates throughout the interior. In something with a very large interior such as a van or large SUV, it may be necessary, but not in a car. I don't have a problem cooling the rear seat of my Black car, even when the temperatures get to 100 degrees, here in the deep South.
  • bug4bug4 Posts: 370
    **steps on soap box**

    One of my pet-peeves on these forums is when one member attributes a position to another member that the member never took. This is particularly problematic when, as is often the case, the position assigned is one that is absurd.

    I don't need to come to anyone's defense here. But, I don't think anyone on this forum has ever said that "no other manufacturer can build a proper engine...only Honda."

    We have some fairly reasonably-minded people on this forum. Sometimes that makes for boring conversation. But, so be it. IMHO, its better not to develop a controversy, and put forum members on the defense, by assigning positions to them that they never took. ** It has happened a bunch on the Accord forums over the last week and it creates dozens of posts that are interesting only to the 2-3 people engaged in the debate.

    Sorry -- I need to give back Pat his host's job. . .

    ** Steps off of soap box**
  • Assuming that the Aura's engine will last longer, because it will turn less rpm would be mistake, and I certainly would not bet on it.

    Reread #7612. The assumption is yours that I said the Aura would last longer than the Honda. I could never say that, outright. I said if materials and maintenance were the same...
    What I was saying, and didn't think it needed further explanation, is that the engine could last years longer, meaning, compared to the same engine turning several million more rev's in it's life time.

    It never fails to amaze me how so many car (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Ford, Chevy or Yugo) owners will go to any length to defend their brand against a perceived attack, It's like Killer Bee's going after a dog because they think it is going to attach the hive :confuse:

    It's been fun though :D
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Phaetondriver stated that the Aura engine would last longer than the Accord engine due to the fact that at certain speeds the engine in the Accord is turning more rpm. I seriously doubt that is true. Of course if there is some proof, I would love to see it. Honda has a reputation for building durable engines, which is why people will pay more for anything with a Honda engine in it, than for the same product without one.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I think what happens is that when we can only communicate through written words, it's very easy to misinterpret the writer's intention. Without the tone of voice and facial cues that are available in a face to face conversation, it's easy for the reader to take a fork in the road that wasn't supposed to be there. :)

    I also think it's good from time to time to set out some reality checks. You make some valid points.

    Actually, I think everyone here is reasonably-minded. We're just passionate about that which we are reasonable. :P
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The assumption is yours that I said the Aura would last longer than the Honda. I could never say that, outright. I said if materials and maintenance were the same...
    What I was saying, and didn't think it needed further explanation, is that the engine could last years longer, meaning, compared to the same engine turning several million more rev's in it's life time.


    If you do not actually believe this statement is true, why say it? Even if the maintenance is the same, they are very different engines. You can make a lot of claims when you use IF this, and IF that, in every sentence.
  • chronochrono Posts: 149
    If you do not actually believe this statement is true, why say it? Even if the maintenance is the same, they are very different engines. You can make a lot of claims when you use IF this, and IF that, in every sentence.

    I keep hearing Honda engines are very different. How so? What we are comparing are two internal combustion engines. Both are V6 with similiar displacement. WHAT shoots down the higher rev arguement. Advanced Honda engineering? OK, like what? To me when you put more stress on an engine for example, forced induction, there is increased wear thus less engine life.
  • If you do not actually believe this statement is true, why say it? Even if the maintenance is the same, they are very different engines

    You don't think I was talking about the same engine?
    How about if I said if you drove your Honda with a rev limiter on the ignition that kept the engine below 5000 RPM and I drove An exact copy of that car built on the same day, in the same factory(s) and mine was limited at 7000 RPM.
    We drove the same roads in the same weather, same traffic, etc. and used the same oil changed at the same time, in the same shop, that your engine and mine would last exactly the same number of miles/years?

    Well without spelling it out in every detail that is what I was saying.
    I don't have the history to back up a statement that the Cadillac 3.6 L engine will last for 2 years or 10. That it will last 50K or 500K miles. Thus I couldn't and didn't make such a statement. It was all the assumptions make because so many what to defend the Honda engine without trying to understand what has been written.
    If you had read what I wrote you would see that I have stated the Honda has a very reliable engine and Honda's are very reliable cars. But as soon as I say that the Aura is good, or maybe better than a Honda, in anything, the defenders all rise to the call.

    Oh! BTW, Why is the Honda Powertrain Limited Warranty (years/miles) = 5/60,000.
    and the Cadillac/Aura XR for 5 years, or 100,000 miles/160,000 kms?
  • I concur, as my 1985 SAAB 900 naturally aspirated 2.0L SOHC I-4 - which by the way is smooth as silk - is over 250K miles with no engine corrective maintenance, and still is a daily driver. In fact, the only powertrain-specific corrective maintenance since purchase in April '85 was a new clutch at 120K miles. Honda is not alone in manufacturing a bullet-proof Inline 4. Ask older Volvo owners about the durability of the old B18 and B20 OHV Inline 4's - their durability is legendary.
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    Suggestion for new topic for today's discussion, "Which midsize car has the best automatic climate control system?

    Difficult to say unless I tested them all. However, the Sebring I recently bought has a very nice one, IMHO. I just set every knob to "A" and it takes care of the rest.

    I've noticed that the fan doesn't blow very hard the first minute or two when starting out on cold days. That keeps cold air from blowing on me. On warm days above 70F or so it directs more air out the instrument panel vents for more direct cooling on me. There's just nothing so far about it that I don't like.

    What don't you like about the Mazda6 climate control?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    the only thing that makes no sense is your apparent claim - that purchase price has anything to do with budget/value.

    I personally think that purchase price has a lot to do with "budget/value, " and I don't think it's nonsense to suggest that relationship. If one can purchase a mid-sized car for $5000-6000 less than another, and both cars have equivalent utility to that buyer, then the less expensive car has a huge head start in terms of total cost of ownership. When such a car, e.g. Fusion or Sonata, is also one of the most reliable in its class (e.g. per Consumer Reports), has a longer warranty than the more expensive cars in its class, and has similar fuel economy to the more expensive cars, then the main difference in cost of ownership is resale value. A $5000-6000 initial gap (and not including extra costs for taxes and interest, or opportunity costs) is very hard to make up just in resale value, especially if you keep a car more than a couple of years.

    If you think that's nonsense and a faulty assumption, that's fine. But I assure you that there is considerable thought, research, and experience behind my opinion.
  • Honda is not alone in manufacturing a bullet-proof Inline 4. Ask older Volvo owners about the durability of the old B18 and B20 OHV Inline 4's - their durability is legendary.

    Or the Toyota 22r. Or the MBZ 5 cylinder diesel. Or the BMW ETA in the 3 and 5 series.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    If one can purchase a mid-sized car for $5000-6000 less than another, and both cars have equivalent utility to that buyer, then the less expensive car has a huge head start in terms of total cost of ownership
    Of course, this is true - and the longer anybody keeps anything the lesser the difference in residual values. Therefore, over 10 years let's say, the Funata not only saved you the $5 grand but also the interest cost of financing the extra money over some period of time. BUT, given that the average new car buyer only keeps (or leases a car) for 3 or 4 years, then the difference in those residual values is significant enough to make the Camcordima a better 'value' if a 'better value' is to be defined as 'total cost to own'. At least this is what those folks (Intellichoice/Edmunds) that study these kind of things say. Why, if this is not true - is it as cheap or cheaper to lease an Accord for example (3-4 year lease) as it can be to lease a Fusion that the leasing company is going to pay a few thousand less for? The word is VALUE. It's a simple concept really except for those folks that seem to equate a cheap initial price with 'cheap to own'. Now If the Fusion,for example, becomes the first Ford branded car in recent history to hold its value well because it becomes a hot commodity as a used car for reliability reasons, then that would certainly help to make the car a possibly better value than the Accord. Historically this has not been the case - the Camcords, in particular, lead the pack not only in higher initial price but also in lowest cost to own. A contradiction - not exactly.
  • At least this is what those folks (Intellichoice/Edmunds) that study these kind of things say. Why, if this is not true - is it as cheap or cheaper to lease an Accord for example (3-4 year lease) as it can be to lease a Fusion that the leasing company is going to pay a few thousand less for?

    Leasing is a bad example, IMHO. The leases on the Fusion and the Mazda6 were both cheaper than the lease on the Accord. The Accord was more out of pocket and a higher payment. This becomes even more true when you take into account the actual transaction price for me to purchase the Accord. One of the reasons I went with the Accord is because I wasn't planning on having the car long, so hopefully it will maintain its value well.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    Yes, I agree, at least wrt the Accord. Accord leases start at $259/mo. plus over $2000 up front for the basic LX model. Milans that are better equipped go for around $220/mo. with less up front, and Sonata GLSes have had lease deals around $200/month with anywhere from 0 to $2000 up front for quite a while. I did see some recent ads for Camry LE leases at $184/mo. with about $2000 up front, so the Camry at least is a good value in terms of leasing. Accord, not very much.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Agree with you - lease costs, as you note, are dependent on several factors but it also remains true that the lease cost is based on the cost for the leasing co. to buy the car less the value of the car over a usually short period of time. If you found the Accord more expensive to lease than the Fusion/6 I would suggest that it could have been Ford subsidizing the lease to a greater degree than Honda. Leasing costs, in general, however, a poor way to 'know' what anybody is truly paying for anything, too many variables. On a strictly 'dollars lost to depreciation' consideration the 2 cars finish very close to equal over a shorter (more common) time period so therefore the Accord is about the same 'value' as that less expensive Fusion if we also assume that the reliabilties/maintanence costs are also close - something I think is logical over the first few years.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    Take a look at Edmund's TCOs for the Sonata GLS and Accord LX for example. There is a whopping 1 cent per mile difference over five years. Note also that the difference in resale value shinks from a little over $5k in year 1 to a little over $3k in year 5. Interesting. What do you suppose will happen after year 5? I suspect the difference will continue to shrink. But you've pocketed the up-front savings immediately. With the Accord, you don't see any extra "value" until you sell the car.

    It's also important to view these general TCOs through a personal filter. For example, suppose someone decided to go for the 0% interest over 5 years plus $500 rebate on the Sonata instead of the $1000 general rebate. According to Edmund's TCO numbers, they'd save about $3500 in financing costs over five years, at the expense of $500 less rebate up front--so about $3000 additional savings (4 cents a mile) over five years. What if in addition they already own a Hyundai and get the $500 loyalty rebate? Now it's close to another 5 cents a mile lower in TCO.

    So the moral is, don't blindly trust the general TCO numbers. Be sure they fit your individual circumstances.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Therefore, over 10 years let's say, the Funata not only saved you the $5 grand but also the interest cost of financing the extra money over some period of time. BUT, given that the average new car buyer only keeps (or leases a car) for 3 or 4 years, then the difference in those residual values is significant enough to make the Camcordima a better 'value' if a 'better value' is to be defined as 'total cost to own'.

    Yes the more expenisve car can sometimes be a better value for short-term owners. I would no rely on edmunds or intellichoice to determine this as the figures they use are often erroneous.

    Anyway, when this is the case (that the more expensive car is cheaper to own) there is usually a crossover point where the cheaper car becomes cheaper overall, as you have acknoledged. So then, if this is an important factor to someone, the information needed is where is the crossover point and how long do they plan to keep the car.

    If for example the crossover is at 3, then for the person who trades in 2 the answer to the question "which will cost me less?" is different from the person who keeps the car 5 years. For those like me who keep cars 10+ years, we can be pretty sure that we will pass any crossover point.

    If the average new car is traded at 3-4 years, this does not mean that every buyer does this. In fact it does not even mean that the average person does it, since one who trades every 3 years will buy 4 cars in 12 years while I may buy only one in 12 years. The average car bought by the two of us will have been owned for 4.8 years (4 owned for 3 years and one for 12 = 4.8 years on average) while the average ownership time for the two of us will be 7.5 years (one person owns for 3 and the other for 12 years).
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Take a look at Edmund's TCOs for the Sonata GLS and Accord LX for example. There is a whopping 1 cent per mile difference over five years.
    and that is really all I'm saying here: the Camcordima is not necessarily any more expensive to own or any less of a 'value' than possibly even that Sonata which definitely costs a whole lot less to buy.
    And yes, if you examine some of these 'cost-to-own' numbers they can overstate initial purchase price especially among those cars that tend to be discounted heavily. The Mazda 6's TCO was based on a purchase price at invoice but a few months into the 06-07 models the car was being sold for a coupla thousand UNDER invoice (something that the Edmunds' (or Mazda) can not anticipate) - but also something that would reduce TCO if (and that's the problem) the car maintains its resale value. My contention, in this case would be, of course, that any 'fire sale' pricing hurts resale values in a similar way so therefore TCO is largely uneffected.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    no problem with any of this at all - if you can keep either car running for 10 years and let's say 200k then the one that costs less to buy intially is undoubtedly a better 'value' if all other factors (maintanence and FE) are equal- the kicker being of course that very few of us new car buyers do this.
Sign In or Register to comment.