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

Midsize Sedans 2.0

17071737576544

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    There is no way you can justify needing more than a good modern 4 cylinder engine
    And of those 'good modern' 4 bangers let's say the Honda, Toyota and Nissan engines every one of them is pulling something close to 20lbs./HP which starts to become a problem in this regard as these cars get larger and heavier. The better V6s will only cost you about 3-4 mpg (or $10.00/month) assumming 27 vs. 30 mpg, 12k/year, and $3/gallon. 10 bucks a small price to pay IMO - it is possible these days to have our cake and eat it too. I'll obviously opt for the securities offered by the 250hp (or more) - you are the one that can be judgmental and tell me that 'I don't need it'.
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    The 335 is a turbo yes, cost $9K more no

    OK - $10K more then. I can get a 328 for $36K with the Premium Pac and the Sport Pac. The 335 is at least $44K with those Pacs, but try to find one with JUST those Pacs. You can't. The ones I've seen at 2 dealers were all loaded.

    gets way less MPGs (who cares tho! - its a 335!) probably 34 highway after being broken in, my 330 got 34 mpg at 65

    Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way.

    High HP is one of the things you use the least in 95% of your drives. 230 in a RWD setup is perfect. disagree, my turbo 4 gets floored quite a bit when merging

    I thought you had a 330? You got the only one coming out of the factory with a turbo 4 then. You have to floor turbos to get 'em up and out. I don't want that kind of wildness going on every time I step on the gas.

    The 335 is sweet, but impractical.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Whoa there Sparky - I never said you shouldn't get a V6. Quite the opposite - I bought one myself and would probably do it again given the choice. But I don't try to justify it by saying it's safer or has better resale. It's a personal preference just like a stick vs. automatic tranny, leather vs. cloth seats, etc.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    It's a personal preference just like a stick vs. automatic tranny, leather vs. cloth seats, etc.


    Well I have seen Accords and the like with trailer hitches welded to them. Probably just for bike racks and such but one never knows!!! :surprise:

    If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Well I have seen Accords and the like with trailer hitches welded to them. Probably just for bike racks and such but one never knows!!!

    If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.


    My '93 actually has a hitch bike rack on it right now. ;) It brought my dining room set home in a 5x8 U-haul trailer with no problems at all, but it doesn't tow nearly as well as the much much newer Subie that is also a 4 cylinder.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    "I would rather not have to punch it as soon as I back out of my parking spot. "

    Ouch! :P

    "With the V6 you can wait until you get halfway down the ramp, and pick a spot to blend into the traffic without anyone having to slow down for you.

    Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against 4 cylinder Accords. My 92 Accord (140hp) was plenty fast enough for me for 12 years. It's just so much easier, and takes less advanced planning, with the 6 cylinder's highway acceleration."


    Your V6 is an automatic, right? So we are talking just under a one second difference from 0-60 MPH, say 7.5 seconds for an I4 manual versus 6.6 for a V6 automatic. I could get in the same gap you could as long as my response is within one second quicker than you. Not that much advanced planning.

    Under one second is not much time, but what are we talking in distance? From a dead stop to 60 MPH, your car would be 79 feet ahead of mine. (Once both vehicles are traveling at a steady 60 MPH, a 0.9 second difference in time equates to 79 feet, right?).

    Noticeable, sure, but not as much of a difference as some here are making it seem. Certainly not half of an on ramp, and definitely not some kind of safety concern.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    79 feet is a lot, when the gap between cars is only 40-50 feet. 1 second or less, can mean a lot in a tight situation. It's easier to merge into fast moving traffic with the V6, is all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's necessary, just nice to have.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    79' is a lot, as you could avoid even a 79' long semi which the I4 would be crushed by....
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    If the gap between cars is 40-50 feet, and the average car is 15 feet long, then if you and I were on the same onramp I'd get on the highway directly behind the car which you got in front of.

    Just one car back.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    But that is what onramps are for... they don't just dump you out onto the highway directly in front of a semi!

    Elroy and I on an onramp... if he was able to get right in front of a semi, I'd just have to pull right behind it. No big deal.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    Most of the V6 family sedans are "above aberage" in terms of acceleration, and most of the I4's are "average." I don't think that makes the V6's safer, however. Once you get quicker than average, in the hands of most drivers, the car becomes less safe. I for one know that I would be a less safe driver behind the wheel of a faster car. It's that tendency to think you can beat that semi while merging instead of just dropping in behind and then passing safely.

    This was proven for me when I was shopping for cars, in the insurance quotes I received. I looked at both the regular and the MazdaSpeed Mazda6. As far as insurance is concerned, replacement parts and crashworthiness should have been about the same, right? However, the faster car (the MazdaSpeed) would have been much more to insure (overall, "less safe" in the eyes of the insurance company).
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    More power can be more or less safe. It all depends on the driver. As far as insurance being more on higher performance cars, that usually applies more to "sports cars" because insurance companies assume these cars will be driven faster. The higher cost of the Speed6 over the regular 6 could be more about the higher cost of replacing the car (doesn't the Speed6 cost more), than it being less safe.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "OK - $10K more then"

    Ummm how about $6k more according to the BMW website? Base price of 328 vs 335.

    "Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way."

    So I have to ask, are you saying I'm lying? The 330 has better gas mileage than some of the 4 bangers.

    "I thought you had a 330?"

    I have and had a number of cars, so what?

    "The 335 is sweet, but impractical."

    Understood, it is impractical for you.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    would betcha, elroy5, that insurance rates for specific cars have a whole lot more to do with the age demographic (average age of a buyer of a specific car model or type) than it does on anything related to HP. A Mazdaspeed anything is, IMO, the perfected 'rice rocket' and certainly more appealing to the generally younger buyer. A Camry V6 should be cheaper to insure than that Speed6 simply because of that and despite those HP numbers being similar.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Exactly, Captain. I think the reason a V6 Accord would be more expensive to insure than the 4cylinder is more about the cost of the car, than the performance.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    Not only that, but Insurance companies live for finding excuses to charge more for insurance. Ohh.... you got the V6 version, BAM! We're charging you a lot more!

    Any excuse will do for criminally setup auto insurance business.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    If the car oozes the words sport, or speed, Insurance company's turn on there profit driven charges.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    OK, Accord vs. Accord, but make it the Speed6 vs. the Accord6 where the vehicle MSRPs are about the same, the Speed6 should cost more to insure, the Speed buyer is probably younger and likes all that 'look at me - I can go fast' bling.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    OK, Accord vs. Accord, but make it the Speed6 vs. the Accord6 where the vehicle MSRPs are about the same, the Speed6 should cost more to insure,

    This is where I think we get into assuming the mentality of the driver. Assuming the Speed driver would be a greater risk would be wrong, IMO. That doesn't mean insurance companies don't do it, I would, however disagree with that. If both cars are "midsize sedans" and the MSRP is the same, the insurance cost should be the same also.
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    Assuming the Speed driver would be a greater risk would be wrong, IMO. That doesn't mean insurance companies don't do it,

    I don't think they do. Most insurance companies determine their rates statisticly. if 3 percent of accords sold are involved in an accident, and 4 percent of mazda speed 6's sold are involved in accidents, the speed 6 will get a higher rate. that's why you pay more depending on where you live, age, sex, record, and type of car.

    its all bassed on statistics.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Andres, your ignorance is glaring.

    In addition to all the driver demographics, vehicle demographics are taken into consideration. (At least they are in CT where I am an insurance agent.)

    Things like frequency of involvement in claims (accidents or theft/vandalism), damagability (the cost of vehicle repairs for standardized damage tests), and value of vehicle are factored into the rate. In CT, and I think most or all of the country, performance car ratings (high perf, intermediate perf or sport car) were dropped several years ago in favor of a more accurate measure of risk based upon actual make/model loss experience. (This evolution was probably helped when Caddy brought out the Northstar. Suddenly, Grandma was driving a "high performance" car and after time the statistics showed that Granny driving her Caddy had a better record than many others cars.)

    The words "sport" or "speed" have nothing to do with it. A Grand Cherokee Loredo Sport does not cost more to insure than a Grand Cherokee Limited. They're not in the class being discussed, they were just the first two examples that came to mind of the "same" vehicle with different sub-names not being rated differently due to a name.

    Another example was the 1984 Chrysler Laser and its Dodge counter part. They were the exact same car, except for the name. After a year or so on the market, the Chrysler became less expensive to insure than the Dodge. The Dodge didn't become more expensive, the Chrysler became less expensive. Why? Try loss experience and what type of driver was attracted to each car.

    Another myth is that manual shift cars cost more to insure than cars with A/T. If anything, the manual shift MIGHT cost less to insure due to the car (generally) having a lower MSRP than the car with A/T.

    The statistics are based on hundreds of thousands or millions of cars over a period of time.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    performance car ratings (high perf, intermediate perf or sport car) were dropped several years ago in favor of a more accurate measure of risk based upon actual make/model loss experience.

    Sounds a lot more logical and accurate to me.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Re our recent thread about the influence of warranty coverage on your mid-sized car purchase decision... Chrysler has just blown past every other automaker with its new lifetime powertrain warranty on all new Chrysler vehicles, including the Sebring and Avenger mid-sized sedans:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121856

    I think this is a great move for Chrysler to catch the attention of buyers, similar to what Hyundai did eight years ago with its 10 year/100k warranty. But Chrysler needs to follow up just as Hyundai did, by greatly improving their products--specifically the Sebring and Avenger--as soon as possible.
  • artourartour Member Posts: 22
    I leased a Speed6 GT the end of Feb. 2006 and really loved and enjoyed the car very much. It was a real kick and pleasure to drive and I felt separated me from 99% of everything else on the road. It had speed, good looks, and all sorts of std. equipment most other cars did not have - keyless entry and starting, auto up/down all 4 windows, hid headlights, easy close trumk, adjustable height of headlights etc. But then the problems began which made me feel unconfident in the ability of the car to get me where I was going or getting home. First, the fuel pump went in Feb of this year in the middle of the snow storm here in the east. My wife & I were on 95 going to MD from NJ and the pump crapped out leaving us stranded and in real jepordy. It took a week and a half to get it fixed, and 4 months more to have Mazda pay me back for the expenses incurred. I decided to get rid of it and get something that has a better track record of durability, so I turned to the Legacy GT sedan. I am now driving the Legacy for around a week and like it too (not as much as the speed6 yet). BTW, I bought out of the Mazda lease 6 months early when I traded for the Legacy and wound up around $1,000 on the upside for the tradein. As I said, I like the Legacy too, but it doesn't make me feel as good driving it as the speed6 did. Maybe because the speed6 was a 6 speed stick and the only 08 Legacy turbo I could get my hands on is an automatic. Also, the speed6 is a much more user friendly car, more storage and all gauges and information is viewable at one time, the Legacy has a computer info center on one led - only one screen at a time.
    If anyone has any questions about my experiences, feel free to ask me.
    Artour
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Member Posts: 229
    I saw a commercial on TV about this tonight. The "fine print" at the bottom says not all models are covered under this new "warranty."

    The warranty is not transferable......Most people don't drive their vehicles for more than a few years. At least not the people I know.....maybe 3-4 years max and then they get new cars.

    The warranty doesn't help subsequent owners and its pretty likely the 3 year/36,000 mile warranty already expired. Also, I don't think the warranty will greatly persuade people to go out and buy a chrysler.
  • mf15mf15 Member Posts: 158
    i agree, it is great for the buyer who intends to keep the car for 10 years. But since I lease Jeeps I could care less, I want to see lower payments than their current lease offers which are not as good as on my 04 Jeep. This is using all rebates, lease loyalty and affiliate discounts. Old Mike
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    you make a number of good points - the way these 'extended warranties are structured can make them almost worthless to the average car buyer. Don't believe the GM/Hyundai warranties are transferrable and you better believe that those mfgrs. know how fast mileage is accumulated and how long the average buyer keeps a car. It is, by any definition, a marketing 'gimmick', IMO. Chrysler can 'warranty' its cars forever but it doesn't change their products, and Chrysler's long term (Cerebus) future - which is shaky. Our compadre, akirby, can rage on all he wants about Ford's first 'profitable' quarter in a long long time, but it is really insignificant to the billions and billions they have lost recently - and the billions and billions more they had to borrow just so they could close some more plants and put even more Americans out of work. GM, OTH, while they have shown the same sort of ability to lose as much money as possible, seems content to simply become the world's first Chinese 'American' manufacturer.

    Given 'Detroit's' generally dire financial straits, I think buyers of those particular brands are really more likely to chance a worthless warranty because the company no longer exists, then they are to actually need to use that warranty in the first place.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    There are very few models not covered--high performance cars, the big Mercedes-sourced van, and (interestingly) diesels, plus some fleet vehicles. But almost every vehicle is covered. Also, most long powertrain warranties don't go past the original owner. It's an inducement for someone to buy a Chrysler, much like the Hyundai/Kia/Mitsubishi warranty (which also doesn't transfer to other owners).
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    There are very few models not covered--high performance cars, the big Mercedes-sourced van, and (interestingly) diesels, plus some fleet vehicles.

    I think the diesel drivetrains already come with some type of extended warranty, and since they are used for some very high mile applications (2-300k/yr) that might be too much to ask.
    I think its cool that they would be willing to support a single owner for a 150-200k lifetime. If the warranty covers the transmission and basic engine mechanicals (like the oil pump, head gasket, etc, but not the water pump), I think that would make me feel more comfortable with a vehicle.
    I also think since most people lease the car anyway, the exposure for Chrysler is minimal, and they might actually be making a reliable product :P
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    If you'd pay attention you'd see that Ford isn't just cost cutting their way to profit, they're making fundamental changes to how they do business including better products but it won't happen overnight. One profitable quarter is simply a good sign that they're on the right path. We'll know in 4 years when the clean sheet new products arrive.

    I bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality. Neither position is accurate as warranty length has nothing to do with quality - it's just an insurance policy with a defined cost that has to be built into the product. Higher quality means less warranty cost but you can put a 10 yr warranty on anything if you have enough profit to pay for the repairs.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Exactly. It's not much of a risk for Chrysler because many people lease cars for a short time, and the average time of ownership of a car is just a few years (one article about this warranty quoted someone at Chrysler as saying 3 years). But it does really stand out as something unique in the industry, and therefore is a smart step for Chrysler, which is desparate to attract buyers any way they can. Then they have to hope that the curious people who come in to drive a Sebring or Avenger like the car enough to buy or lease it.

    One little problem I see with this warranty program: when Hyundai did it eight years ago, they had a big problem with lack of confidence in the quality of their vehicles. A long warranty can help alleviate that concern. I don't think Chrysler's big problem is vehicle reliability, at least not powertrain reliability. I think it's that they need more competitive car designs, especially mid-sized cars (and small cars too). A long warranty won't help solve that problem, but maybe it will help them stay in the game better until they can improve their cars.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Well there are a few oddballs like me that buy a car new and keep it forever. Had our first two new cars for 12 years each and our 3rd for 10 and counting. Plan to keep the latest ones just as long.

    Most people in both our families are the same way and I expect our kids will be so also, so for us it would be a factor. OTOH, from the mfr's perspective, if all you attract are the buyers who come in once every 12 years (like me) you will only sell them 1/4 as many cars as you would to the same number of people who trade every 3 years. :surprise:

    I would have liked to have had a warranty like this on my windstar to cover all the gaskets in their sieve (3.8L engine). And actually, now that I think of it, it was seals and gaskets that led to the demise of it's predecessor...a Plymouth minivan.

    I think this would have caused me to give additional consideration to Chyrsler products, but pretty sure even after that I would not have chosen the Sebring.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I tend to keep new cars in the family for a long time also, but I don't put many miles on in a year. That is why the long warranties from Hyundai et. al. appeal to me. However, the warranty is no good to me if I don't like the car. The warranty is a tie-breaker for me, if more than one car crosses the bar in every other respect. The Sebring and Avenger don't do that for me. But suppose it came down to, say, an Optima and a Milan, for about the same price. Then the Optima's longer warranty would be a plus.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    If someone was already considering a Chrysler product, this could cinch the deal. This warranty should help Chrysler retain/maintain the current number of customers, but as far as attracting more/new customers, I doubt it will be so effective.
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    Ford's first profitable' quarter in a long long time

    even ford themselves said it would be the only profitable quarter this year, and they don't expect sustained profitablilty till 2009
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    But it sure helps with the cash flow situation.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    It also shocked a lot of so called financial "experts". :shades:

    This article appeared in the Detroit News the morning of the 26th. They should have waited to publish their guesses. :D
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    Not a huge MT fan, but.... let the Kia haters begin the tirades...

    Buick LaCrosse 2
    Chevy Malibu 3
    Chrysler Sebring 2
    Dodge Avenger 2.5
    Ford Fusion 3
    Honda Accord 3.5
    Hyundai Sonata 3
    Kia Optima 3.5
    Mazda 6 2.5
    Mercury Milan 3
    Mitsubishi Galant 2.5
    Nissan Altima 3
    Pontiac G6 2.5
    Saturn Aura 3
    Suburu Impreza 3
    Toyota Camry 3.5
    Volkswagen Jetta 3.5
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality
    Hogwash, IMO - if you find Toyota or Honda offering these ridiculous warranties then it is evidence of declining market share or (even worse) declining reputation. Camcords have the warranties that they have precisely and only because that is all that is needed to sell them - some of the cars in this group don't get a second look without it - and it would be foolish (and bad business) for Toyota/Honda (and Nissan) to do such a thing when all three cars sell just fine and magically blow away the lesser competition in long term reliability studies anyway. In short, these extended warranties are more likely evidence of suspect quality (and reputation) not superior.
    The Camcords, specifically, have set the standard in this class for about 25 years now, and there is no evidence at this point that any of this has changed other than the competition seems, over a much shorter term, to be getting a bit better. It's about time - it is not like those other manufacturers didn't have plenty of time to see how it's done...
    These warranties are offered for several marketing type reasons, but 'superior quality' is NOT one of them. 'Superior quality' is something that is expected from models from particular mfgrs., and not something that any warranty of any length is ever going to imply/evidence/guarantee (or whatever), for 10 years or 10 minutes!
    From your statement you are trying to tell me that the Sebring, in this case, must be the best built car available, if we are to assume that this model is covered by this Chrysler warranty? Gimme a break!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    We'll know in 4 years when the clean sheet new products arrive.
    oh yeah, more promises coming from Dearborn. Both the Fusion and Five Hundred were touted to be class competitive and defining 'clean sheet' new products, neither of which are or were. How about some results - the promises are getting very, very, very, old.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    We'll know in 4 years when the clean sheet new products arrive.

    I believe what the captain meant to say was:
    oh yeah, more promises coming from Dearborn. Both the Fusion and Five Hundred were touted to be class competitive and defining 'clean sheet' new productsINSERT PERSONAL OPINION HERE

    I think there is a slight mix up between class competitive and class leading. Of course, I don't think an over powered weak kneed lounge chair is class leading either, and that seemed to drive his purchase decision.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    From your statement you are trying to tell me that the Sebring, in this case, must be the best built car available, if we are to assume that this model is covered by this Chrysler warranty? Gimme a break!

    Please re-read what I posted. I guess you stopped after the first sentence.

    I bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality. Neither position is accurate as warranty length has nothing to do with quality - it's just an insurance policy with a defined cost that has to be built into the product. Higher quality means less warranty cost but you can put a 10 yr warranty on anything if you have enough profit to pay for the repairs.

    My point was the Camcord lovers have such a double standard on things like this that it's almost laughable.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    oh yeah, more promises coming from Dearborn. Both the Fusion and Five Hundred were touted to be class competitive and defining 'clean sheet' new products, neither of which are or were. How about some results - the promises are getting very, very, very, old.

    The Fusion and the Five Hundred ARE competitive - not class leading but certainly competitive. The new Taurus just might be class leading.

    There are 2 things different at Ford - Fields and Mullaly - and they are making FUNDAMENTAL changes to how Ford designs and builds cars (finally) that previous CEOs either didn't know how or didn't have the guts to do. The 09 models due out next year will be the first real sign of the product design turnaround under Fields. It will take 2 or 3 more years to fully realize the global platform strategy that Mullaly is mandating now.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Five Hundred ARE competitive"

    I agree 100%. I had a 500 for a week, it had a lot of room. Amenities were ok. Acceleration was adequate, handline was annoying and it sucked gas like no tomorrow. Would I buy one over an Accord? I don't know, this car defintely fits the value proposition, pay less, get less.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    " let the Kia haters begin the tirades... "

    I for one actually like the new Optima. From what I have seen and read, it is a big step up for that manufacturer.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    I fail to see how a package of extended warranties e.g: Hyundai's 10 yr/100K mile powertrain coupled with a 5 yr/60K mile bumper to bumper + additional perks is "ridiculous". I have found through experience that Hyundai doesn't "need" this type of warranty any longer to sell cars. In fact I keep looking for them to drop/diminish it. However, please don't make the mistake of believing that Honda (for sure in my experience), and Toyota don't need the reassurance of a long warranty. I do have experiences (not good ones) with a 2006 Civic and keep looking over my shoulder at the end of the 3 yrs/36K mile warranty rapidly closing in on us. I for one like AND miss the luxury of a long warranty...used or not.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    no, I said what I meant to and did start that particular post with an IMO - the 500 a regurgitated Volvo, the Fusion, of course a regurgitated 6 and both hampered by old drivetrains that simply don't measure up by about any yardstick you choose to use - power and FE come to mind. Even the new Edge, portrayed recently in a magazine as something that could have 'saved Ford' has tested very poorly (CR) relative to its competition despite getting the new 'clean sheet' 3.5 which apparently isn't really 'clean sheet' after all. Yes, class leading and competitive are certainly different terms, but, it would be refreshing to see any Detriot mfgr. make something other than a truck that would cause the real Big 3 in this class to take notice.
    The Avalon, BTW, which I guess is what you diss, is anything but 'weak kneed' in the 'Touring' trim which I own, has further won outright every comparo it has ever been a part of (TMK), has the lowest COO in its class, the best power (except for the V8s, of course), the best FE, and is the highest rated sedan CR has ever tested (tied with an Acura). If you are willing to tradeoff some of smooth and quiet ride for anything not so 'soft' that's one thing but that, my friend, is exactly what 'class leading' is all about!
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    My point was the Camcord lovers have such a double standard on things like this that it's almost laughable.

    Yes, some of them would.
    cough andres3 cough, cough

    :P
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I have found through experience that Hyundai doesn't "need" this type of warranty any longer to sell cars.
    glad you've had apparently good luck with your Hyundais, but it would be the Korean mfgrs. that 'need' that warranty the most, IMO, not so much for what they are producing now but in payment for past sins. No car should have any sort of real problems in its first 100k, the warranties 'ridiculous' (maybe a bad choice of words) in that a well designed and built car shouldn't ever darken the dealer's doorstep until well after that mileage has come and gone. In fact, I would bet that the 7 years (for those that don't drive that much, is a tougher number (from Hyundai's perspective) than the 100k. Tell me that your Hyundai has been trouble free for several years and maybe 250k miles, that's indicative of something really good as it is for any car these days.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >Hogwash, IMO - if you find Toyota or Honda offering these ridiculous warranties then it is evidence of declining market share or (even worse) declining reputation.

    How about the transmission "extension warranty" to 100K miles for Hondas. How about the recalls to put in an oiling tube they "forgot" in engineering?

    How about the current transmission/powertrain problems with flare and hesitations in Camry (ES/Avalon), which is giving Camry a real problem in image. If you are open-minded I can link to discussions here on Edmunds where people are upset about not having the "powertrain warranty" applied even during those short full warranty periods. How about the recent sludge problem with Toyotas? They extended the warranty to cover some--at least to make it look good in the media...

    Regression to the mean is occurring.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

Sign In or Register to comment.