Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Low End Sedans (under $16k)

1192022242575

Comments

  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    The rankings listed above are strictly on drivability. Everyone really likes the focus for what it is but Ford can't quite pull off the reliability. Hopefully as soon as Mazda starts designing their small engines it will turn around.

    I would really like to be able to buy an American car. They just can't get the reliability down. Saturn is about as close as I would go relibility wise but their fit and finish isn't that good.
  • claywaterfillclaywaterfill Member Posts: 534
    My whole point is--even if the editors of CR LOVED the Focus, how can they rate it #1 when their own research shows it is not #1? You would think an organization like CR would penalize the Focus on its bad reliability record.
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    The car itself drive wonderfully from what I understand, it's just that down the road it will go bad only. Plus the list isn't which car is best it's which ones they liked to drive. There is another chart that runs through the reliability.

    It's funny on the reliability part the Chevrolet Prizm is higher in reliability that the Toyota Corolla. Figure that out.

    Ah statistics....
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    They did penalize it. They don't recommend it.

    Think of it this way. The rankings do not take reliability into consideration.

    When they decide whether or not to recommend a car, then reliability does come into play.

    Understand now?
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Where do you see the Prizm is rated higher in terms of reliability than the Corolla in Consumer Reports?

    I have the 2002 Buying Guide in front of me and I see no such thing.

    In fact, I see the opposite. For whatever reason, the Corolla scores higher (i.e., has less problems) in more of the individual trouble spots.

    Both the Prizm and the Corolla get the red check mark for overall reliability and they receive the top mark for predicted reliability.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    In Kiplinger's December 2001 edition, they rate the 2002 cars. In the under-$16,000 category, the Focus ZX3 is their top pick, followed by the Civic. Note that the ZX3 does fall into the under-$15,000 category. They do consider safety, 20% of their overall rating, but interestingly they use actual accident statistics vs. the crash tests to rank cars on safety.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Backy, is that issue still on the newsstands?
  • lleroilleroi Member Posts: 112
    cars do on the safety using the actual statistics?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I saw the mag on the newsstand at the Minneapolis airport this morning. I didn't buy it (c'mon, that costs money!) but saw the cover story on 2002 cars so had to take a peek. I scanned the article and zeroed in on the discussion of the under-$16k cars. As for how they can rate safety using actual stats even on Korean cars, there is an organization (darned if I can't remember the name now, maybe it will come to me later or someone else knows what it is) that tracks actual loss data by insurance companies. That would apply to all cars in the U.S., regardless of where they're made. They have a couple years of data now on the Focus and Echo, three years on the Protege, a full year on the Civic and Elantra, etc. As I said, this was not an exhaustive analysis of the article, just saw the section on their top picks and a discussion of how they rated the cars, including the safety factor, which I thought was notable since it used real-world loss statistics vs. lab tests. Maybe if I have some extra bucks and can find it again I'll pick it up next time I see it.
  • lleroilleroi Member Posts: 112
    just go to kiplinger.
  • protegextwoprotegextwo Member Posts: 1,265
    CONSUMER REPORTS 2002 BUYING GUIDE: Small Car Rankings-

    1.)Ford Focus*
    2.)Volkswagen Golf
    3.)Honda Civic
    4.)Toyoya Prius
    5.)Toyota Echo
    6.)Mazda Protege
    7.Hyundai Elantra*
    8.)Volkswagen Jetta

    * Not Recommended because of below average reliability

    My Personal Ranking
    1.Mazda Protege-The best choice
    2.Honda Civic-The safe choice
    3.Volkswagen Jetta-The pricy choice
    4.Toyota Echo-The odd looking choice
    5.Volkswagen Golf-The funky choice
    6.Ford Focus-The "Born in the USA"choice
    7.Toyota Prius-The "green" choice
    8.Hyundai Elantra-The low price choice

    However, I think all of these vehicles are pretty good machines and would serve their owners well.
  • lleroilleroi Member Posts: 112
    1.Elantra-stylish choice
    2.Focus-USDA choice
    3.Jetta-Audi second choice
    4.Golf-PGA choice
    5.Echo-Ronald McDonald's choice
    6.Protege-smart(bomb)choice
    7.Prius-Sophie';s choice
    8.Civic-homeboy's choice
  • protegextwoprotegextwo Member Posts: 1,265
    I want to wish everyone, a Happy Thanksgiving. Please be safe in all your travels, Zoom Zoom!

    God Bless,
    Larry
  • lleroilleroi Member Posts: 112
    and your family.
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    majorthomecho: I'm actually looking at the online version of Consumer reports. They have a section that is "Reliability by Category" and in there they have the Prizm a skinny hair above the Carolla for reliability.

    In that same list they have the PT Cruiser NEON listed higher than the Protege which absolutely blew my mind.
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    Sorry for jumping in on this, but I must say that I have over the past few years become increasingly disenchanted by their car reviews. They present them as objective but they seem to be all over the place. How exactly can two cars that are in many respect virtual twins (The Golf and the Jetta) appear at essentially opposite sides of the ranking list?

    Even their reliability results are I feel somewhat suspect. Sure they probably do give a general impression of the overall quality of a car, but with respect to requiring unscheduled maintainance or worse stranding the driver, I suspect that the difference between the top of the list and the bottem is that the top of the list will not start on one day in 10 years while the one at the bottem of the list will not start on 1.7 days in 10 years.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    Overall quality of cars has gotten a lot better in the last decade, but CR forces a bell curve pushing the bottom end off the recommended charts. Also, if I understand their rankings correctly they count quantity of problems and not quality. Thus a total engine failure and a minor problem both count one point. This has tended to favor Japanese cars in the past over generally reliable but more minor glitch prone American cars. Or do I misunderstand these ratings?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Part of the reason that "twin" cars like the Golf/Jetta may get different rankings is that CR typically buys and tests only one model of a car at a time. Sometimes they will "check test" a different version, e.g. a 5-speed when they do a full test on the automatic. So with the wide variety of Golf/Jetta models available, with different engines and trim levels, it's understandable that they could rank different models differently. Likewise, I'll bet they would not rank a Focus LX at the top of the chart, nor would they rank a Civic DX way up near the top. I am curious as to how they will rank the Elantra GT, if and when they test it--and they should have a test of the new 5-doors, like the GT, Protege5, and Focus ZX5 pretty soon.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    lleroi, do you have a URL for the Kiplinger article on 2002 cars that was in their December 2001 issue? I checked out www.kiplinger.com and I saw some stories on cars, including a brief story on small cars, but this was not the same as the article I saw in the magazine (maybe they want us to acutally buy the magazine!).
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    I have the issue of Kiplinger's Personal Finance now and I will get to discussing it later, but I wanted to talk about CR first.

    Contrary to what one poster in this thread stated, CR does give you some indication of the severity of problems. They ask owners about the realibility of their cars in 14 different areas. Problems with paint and trim, which I would consider minor, are not reported in the same category as the problems with the engine or another more major component.

    I find it suspect that people whose cars don't do as well in the survey of reliability seem to be the ones who have the biggest issue with CR.

    Now back to Kiplinger. One thing that Kiplinger reported on was the five year service costs for the various vehicles. Service costs were "estimated five-year cost of maintenance and unscheduled repairs, based on past costs."

    What I did not understand was if the unscheduled repairs portion were for the cost of repairs outside the warranty or inside the warranty. Either way you slice it, I thought the five year service costs were a little on the high side for Hyundais.

    What do the others who have seen the issue think?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You're right, Major, the five-year unscheduled repair costs for Hyundais (also Kias) should be very low (may have to replace tires, wiper blades and other wear items outside of warranty). Maybe Kiplinger's was using an annual mileage of more than 12,000 when they estimated five-year repair costs--did they say what their mileage assumption is? If over 12,000, that would put owners outside the bumper-to-bumper warranty in less than 5 years. But powertrain repairs would still be covered up to 100,000 miles.

    Re paint problems... a lot of them are minor, like dirt in the paint, but some paint problems can be biggies, like where the paint comes off in large patches, requiring a repaint (and probably a lot of hassle for the owner getting the manufacturer to pay for the repaint).
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how they divide them up, their reports simply do not give adequate information regarding reliability. I imagine few people, even their readers, would be able to tell you how much more likely a car that is ranked unreliable in an area is to have a problem than one that is ranked reliable. Without knowing this data, and how it is collected, you really don't have enough info to make a good decision.

    Like I pointed out later, the fact that cars that are essentially twins, or worse are twins (like the Corolla/Prism) can be ranked differently certainly calls their rating system into question.

    For the record I do not own a Korean Car.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    It is not a matter of a car being rated reliable in one area as opposed to another being rated unreliable in the same area. CR does not state that this car will have a reliable engine while this car won't. It doesn't work like that. Results for the 14 areas are given and then these results are compared to results of other cars and this leads to the overall reliability verdict and the predicted reliability forecast.

    And CR does give a guide as to what the various colors of "dots" mean.

    There are so many false claims and mischaracterizations being made (by the people who complain about CR) that it makes me wonder if you guys really read CR carefully.

    Now back to Kiplinger's and Backy's question. The article does not say how many miles a year they use in figuring out the service costs. They do say that Intellichoice compiled the figures. One would have to believe that the same method of computation is used on all the cars.

    I do wish they had broken service costs down into regular maintenance and unscheduled service and explained whether the figures for unscheduled service were within warranty or outside the warranty. I would have found the information even more useful and informative.

    If anyone would care to go to the Intellichoice website and see what they can find out, I would appreciate it. I have been to the website, but have never been able to figure out how to access the service cost data.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    I went to the Intellichoice website one more time and I was finally able to access the service cost data. Intellichoice does break down service cost into maintenance and repair, but I still have no idea if repairs are within warranty repairs or outside warranty repairs.

    I did a quick comparison of the figures for my Echo and a Hyundai Accent. My Echo has a lower cost for maintenance and a lower cost for repairs.

    Edit: I found out how IntelliChoice figures repair costs. They base it on a 5 year extended warranty with a zero deductible and a mileage limit of 70,000 miles.
  • lleroilleroi Member Posts: 112
    For all the pretense of scientific means of quantifying findings CR (and the others)still cannot tell you the diffence between an excellent rating and a poor.The safety tests are the same.For instance different size people will experience different results in the same crash.Also I can ram the same car in the rear 20 times and go to 20 places and get 20 different repair estimates.I would get 20 different estimates at the same place as well.
    The tester is the wild card.Two different people will see different pluses and minisus in the same car.A hard ride could mean "sportscar like"handling to one tester(+) and lousy comfort to another(-).These mags are good to narrow your test drive choices,but other then basic specs are not that useful to determine what car to buy.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    A possible reason for the $174 difference in Intellichoice's estimated maintenance costs for the Accent vs. ECHO (I used 2001 base 2 doors for comparison) is that they may have used a 3000 mile oil change interval for the Accent and 5000 for the ECHO. That's what Edmunds.com uses in their maintenance calculator. That's 14 oil changes for the ECHO over 70k miles vs. 23 for the Accent, at about $40 per oil change (so says Edmunds.com), that's $360 more right there. So cars with an oil change interval of 5000 miles or more (e.g. the Civic with 5000 miles and Elantra with 7500 miles) may come out better in this comparison, especially since Intellichoice uses the same labor rates for all cars (at least non-luxury cars).

    Basing repair costs on the price of an extended warranty for 5 years/70,000 miles is an odd way of calculating repair costs. But then, how else would they do that unless they surveyed owners, which would cost a lot more than just using some arbitrary warranty costs. What they are saying is that an Accent owner would expect to pay $698 for an additional 10,000 miles of bumper-to-bumper warranty coverage during the first five years of ownership, while an ECHO owner would pay $565 for two additional years and 34,000 miles of warranty. I find that hard to believe, since I know I could have bought an additional five years and 40,000 miles of bumper-to-bumper warranty from Hyundai for my '01 Elantra for around $1000. In the real world, how many Accent owners would shell out $698 for 10,000 more miles of warranty? Not too many I'd wager. I think it is more likely that the actual unscheduled repair costs for a car that is not under warranty will be higher than for a car that is under warranty. Even for a reliable car like the ECHO--its probability of a problem during years 4 and 5 is not zero. I'll grant that the probability that the Accent will require unscheduled repairs in years 4 and 5 is greater than that for the ECHO, based on Toyota's historic high reliability vs. Hyundai's record, but at least the repair costs for the Accent will be zero up to 60k miles, wear items excepted. I wonder if Intellichoice's methodology adequately accounts for the long-term warranties in Hyundais and Kias?
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Backy, I did not catch that about how they figured the repair costs so thanks for pointing it out. I agree that it is stupid.

    As far as maintenance goes, Intellichoice stated that they follow whatever the maker's recommendations are. However, they don't say if they follow the severe driving schedule or the normal driving schedule.

    Toyota recommends oil changes for my Echo every 5k under severe driving conditions and 7.5k under normal driving conditions.

    I believe that is the schedule for all Toyotas so perhaps if someone who has a Hyundai can post what the oil change schedules are, we can reasonably assume the schedule for the Accent would be the same even if the person posting does not own an Accent.
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    Yep, the big problem with the reports that claim to provide scientific data is that there is always a user bias. Not to pick on Edmunds or in fact any of the other car magazines, but look at how likely it is that they will give a favorable review to a BMW. Over time a user bias develops that can distort the observation. There is no intentional bias, but if you are told a BMW is a great car enough you are apt to believe the one you are driving now is a great one too. This is not saying the BMW is not a great car, just that the views are not necessarily unbiased.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Is that your unbiased opinion, Bill? ; )
  • claywaterfillclaywaterfill Member Posts: 534
    People without real knowledge of the cars they are talking about will fall back on the publicly perceived notions about the cars. How many people on these boards who talk about Kias being junk have ever driven one? How many people thinking BMWs are the best have ever driven one of those?
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Clay, my post was a joke. Nice of you not to get it.

    But to answer your questions, I do not think that Kias are junk. They are just not very good cars. Yes, I have driven some.

    But you don't necessarily have to drive a vehicle to form an opinion about the quality. Or do you think that checking out the operation of something like the glove box requires a test drive?
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    Naturally. I long ago concluded that I am the only person in the world capable of making a truely objective observation and therefore all of my opinions are unbiased ; ).
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    Actually my point was even stronger than that. Bombarded with enough information one way or the other, your opinions on a test drive or even after an extended period with a car can be influenced by the opinions of others. Granted it is not enough to overcome a genuine lemon, but it certainly might be enough to allow the driver to overlook small faults or to magnify small faults into major problems.

    Scientific Experimentation often requires ways of hiding information from the user that might be a source of bias: In clinical trials of drugs there is always a control given a placebo, Particle Physicists now use methods to hide the results of an experiment until after all the data has been processed, etc. Unfortunately such methods are pretty much impossible with cars. I know that Hyundai tried hiding the identity of their Sonata a few years back but that was only for short test drives, it would be impossible to hide the identity of a car over an extended period of time.

    Ultimately for Hyundai to overcome the perception of many, it is going to take many, many happy owners who have owned the cars for many years. Daewoo and Kia have even higher obstacles to climb since they enjoy far less recognition than Hyundai (and imho their products are less appealing (I know some people like the Optima, but I look at it and think Yuck, I like the Sonata much better in terms of styling).
  • claywaterfillclaywaterfill Member Posts: 534
    That's what I've been trying to say. People are more likely to overlook small imperfections in an Accord, but magnify them in a Sonata (or Leganza, or whatever). We all know that Daewoo and Kia have much farther to go than Hyundai, but its only been in the last couple of years that they have HAD to step it up to compete with the big Japanese companies in this country. I think anyone would be hard pressed to look at 2002 Optimas and Sedonas and think they are no better than 1995 Sephias and Sportages. Kia releases a new 4Runner-size SUV next year and the improvements keep coming. Give them a little while and they'll be there.
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    In case anyone wants to know Ford recalled it's Focus again. It's only about 279,000 of them though. (sigh) According to the article the 2000 focus has been recalled 7 times. It's almost funny that the good press on that car is just about weighted equally against the bad press. Oh well.

    Anyone else noticed the 80's like adds that Daewoo is running for it's Lanos? It's even got the ubiquitous panther-morphing-into-a-car routine. Oh an how about the car driving up the dam. (chuckle)

    "The Daewoo Lanos dominates the road with it's 109 ft/lbs of torque"
  • claywaterfillclaywaterfill Member Posts: 534
    Did you notice the small print at the bottom of the screen during the "driving up the dam" thing? It said "Unsafe maneuver, do not attempt" or something to that effect. Too funny!
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    While one can certainly argue that it might be a poor decision to choose a Korean Car over a Toyota or a Honda, I think that Ford had done alot to make the argument for Korean cars in recent years. How Ford could produce a car that is so good and bad at the same time I will never know. It is funny really, a couple of years ago many analysts thought that Ford might pass GM, I don't think that is likely to happen in the near future now.
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    The really scary part about it is that GM makes "worse" cars than ford. GM has never been a personal favorite of mine. Their cars are just too cheap and lack attention to detail. Ford has attention to detail but they don't seem to be able to design a solid reliable product. (sigh) Oh well. maybe one day I'll buy American again. The best I can do now if I want to buy American is to buy a care Manufactuered here using our labor (ie Honda Accord).
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Bill, you miss my point and that is you do not have to take a test drive to make a determination about the quality of a car, ANY car. I am not saying that glove boxes are a problem on a Korean car. I was just using that as an example of something that you can check without the car being in drive.
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    I think you missed my point. Test Drive or no Test Drive, most people, maybe all people, simply cannot be objective in assesing the quality of a car. We are constantly bombarded by messages from the media, from friends, from past experiences that often lead us to prejudge a car without ever seeing it and seeing it will often do little or nothing to alter that initial perception.

    If people's perceptions of cars were purely logical, then I imagine that GM would have gone out of business years ago, or at least trimed their line down considerably. The Cavalier for example is on an (in automotive terms) ancient platform, was never very refined, has a number of niggling problems associated with it and yet it still remains a very strong selling sedan for GM, indeed I would bet many of its buyers are buying their second Cavalier. Further I would bet that many of those Cavalier Drivers would claim it is just as good as any Japanese Car.

    Also of course different people have a different idea of what constitutes quality. To some it is a car with no squeaks and rattles and an impeccable finish, to others it is a car that will run without letting them down for 100K+ miles. To the first group a flimsy cupholder (Like VW is infamous for) might be a sign of poor quality, to the latter group a GM car might well qualify (since many of the old engines in GMs stable are essentially bullet proof at this point) as being high quality.
  • bill_1bill_1 Member Posts: 97
    I will agree that GM cars often have very poor initial build quality, at least when it comes to fit and finish, but I would certainly say that the number of recalls on the Focus indicates a lack of attention to detail. While I am not a huge fan of GM either, their cars, while unrefined and likely full of rattles and squeaks are actually usually pretty dependable. I had a 1989 Cavalier that I kept until 1998 (99 model year); It only stranded me once at 120,000 miles when the ignition module went on the car (at that many miles it could happen to any car), I did have to replace the spark plug wires a couple of times and the computer control chip twice (but then again it never stopped running either time) but other than that I have little to complain about in that car.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    at Ford... I shudder to think what Job Two is. A slew of recalls on my '95 Mystique, otherwise a good ride IMO, kept me from looking seriously at the Focus. And now SEVEN on the 2000 Focus?!? I think that breaks the record of my mom's baby blue '76 Plymouth Volare 2 door with the white vinyl opera roof, slant six, and wire wheels. (As you'll recall, the Volare/Aspen was Motor Trend's Car of the Year in '76.)
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    well let's go ahead! Did anybody else hear the story about Ford's Escape boo-boo? Something about the wrong tool/jig/assembly track set up was put into motion and the Escape went forward and several tires(yes, they must have been Firestone's 'cause Firestone denied wrongdoing for this foible!)were crushed and rims destroyed before they stopped the assembly line. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to sit here and key in that I think Ford employees are smoking crack on the job, but....well, uhhh, you know what I mean.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • 2001civicowner2001civicowner Member Posts: 16
    Ford's suck.
    Buy a Honda.
  • protegextwoprotegextwo Member Posts: 1,265
    1094 Quality? by 2001civicowner Nov 27, 2001 (10:31 pm)
    Ford's suck.
    Buy a Honda.


    Thank you for adding such valuable insight to this discussion! You are a very deep thinker and I hope you stick around to enrich this topic with more of your wisdom and illuminating information?
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Iluv, I think that was the redesigned Explorer and not the Escape.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    The attitude that you say people have is one I don't understand and do not share. I think all cars should be judged the same when it comes to fit and finish. Also judged the same when it comes to squeaks and rattles.

    I guess what I am saying is that a minor problem in a Hyundai or Kia would bother me just as much as if I were in a Honda or Toyota and visa versa. Also a major problem would bother me just as much whatever car had it.
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    #888 of 888 CIVIC by 2001civicowner Nov 27, 2001 (10:23 pm)
    I paid 16,300 for my EX civic back in august. Has everything, including a rear spolier.
    Honda's are better than Hundai's for many reasons, but here's one:

    Honda: put the key in: ding, ding, silence

    Hundai: put the key in: ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong

    never ends. and that would make you a ding dong for buying it.

    'nuff said

    MORE WORDS OF WISDOM WHY WE SHOULD ALL BUY A HONDA. AS SEVERAL OF YOU KNOW I'M MOVING ONWARD AND UPWARD TO A WRX WAGON BY SUBARU. BUT AS A CIVIC OWNER FOR AT LEAST A LITTLE LONGER I STILL QUALIFY TO SPEAK IN THIS FORUM. I CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND THAT HONDA'S ARE GREAT LITTLE CARS BUT ARE HARDLY ALL THAT. BLAND AND WITHOUT CHARACTER IS HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE MY COMMUTING APPLIANCE. YES I DRIVE THE AUTOMOTIVE EQUIVILANT OF A TOASTER. MY FIRST AND FAVORITE CAR (84 SUBIE WAGON
    4X4) HAD ABOUT A GOOGLE MORE CHARACTER THAT MY CURRENT CAR. I NEEDED A CAR THAT HAD EXCELLENT GAS MILAGE AND AT THE TIME THE CIVIC WAS ONE OF THE BEST. NOW THAT I DONT COMMUTE AS MUCH, HIGH FUEL ECONOMYIS NOT AS MUCH OF A PRIORITY. I CAN SETTLE FOR SOMETHING IN THE LOW TO MID 20'S WHICH THE WRX SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING IF I STAY OFF THE GO PEDAL MOST OF THE TIME. ANYWAY THATS MY .02 FOR THE DAY. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON.

    KYLE
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Member Posts: 1,331
    Perhaps I am dense, but I did not understand the thing about put the key in a Hyundai and it goes ding dong ding dong ad infinitum.
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    WHICH IS WHY I POSTED IT. IT IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN HONDA FANATICS MISCELLANEOUS RAMBLINGS
Sign In or Register to comment.