Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda Civic vs. Hyundai Elantra
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
When YOU own the vehicle, all the "problems" are YOURS!
Yes, that is especially true with Hondas such as the Civic, which have only a 3-year, 36,000-mile warranty on even the powertrain. With Hyundais such as the Elantra, the problems are yours but at least Hyundai will fix them under warranty for five years/60,000 miles bumper-to-bumper, and for 10 years/100,000 miles powertrain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timing
I wonder if Honda jumped on any patents from GM or Fiat? ;-)
I stand corrected, Honda was the first manufacturer to bring VTEC to market. Fiat and GM experimented, but never produced a vehicle with it. Just like GM tried to produce cylinder deactivation system in 80's, which did not work. Honda has been able to make it work.
I don't think you fully understand how franchising works in the US. Honda corporate does not benefit from dealer marks ups at all. Honda coprorate sells the vehicles to the individual dealerships or dealership corporations at invoice, charges them for delivery and then it is done. If the cars don't sell Honda corporate will throw in some incentive for the dealer to lower the price. The widley known incentive is holdback, which encourages the dealer to sell the car fast. But after certain period of time, the holdback is 0. Honda corporate may work out a deal with AHFC (Honda bank) to have some low interest loans or leases, but those are just the tools that Honda provides individual dealerships to help them make a sale.
I know that Hyundai has officially announced that ALL new models (even lowly Accents) in the future will be fitted with side-impact airbags, side-curtain airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, and electronic stability control. If Hyundai is going to do this in inexpensive cars, why can't Honda do it?
All 2006 Honda Civic's will have side impact air bags and ABS standard. I heard.
To paraphrase it to the car, a customer is pleased when the car performs its intended function, which is to take you from point A to point B. You can add on more trinkets to the car to make a customer more delighted, such are leather seats, power windows, a/c, and so on. But the customer is going to be very angry, when the car does not start. When the product does not perform its basic function, all the add on's are worthless. The air bags and leather seats are good for nothing in a car that does not start. It is a very simple concept.
Hondas aren't easily negotiable, and it is my belief that if someone thinks they are getting a great deal on their Honda car, it is because they are having the dealer markup taken off. Honda does not offer incentives period, ever. They do offer special financing, but no incentives directly from Honda. I was just making the claim that dealerships (not Honda) only budge on pricing within the markup gap. For instance, if the total MSRP of an Accord is $27000 here, the dealership will have a little side sheet that says "M.V. Adjustment $2000", and the car will be $29000. If someone is to get any money off the top end of the car price from a dealership here, it is going to be in that $2000, not any further.
As for customer delight, the 2004 Elantra is the most "delightful" small car, according to research consultancy Strategic Vision, Inc. Strategic Vision's "Customer Delight Index," based on the Edwards Customer Delight Scale ®, provides a comprehensive look at the product attributes and benefits that explicitly create "super-positive" delightful responses from the primary drivers of the vehicles.
Bottom line- you are talking about specific third person reports and selected information you want to present. Honda's good reputation has gone long past "my uncles car has a million miles" stories and is systemically favorable in all reports. As long as you are aware of that and not reacting in anger to a bad dealer experience, feel free to get whatever car you want.
I fail to realize the significance of your placing quotes around your "arguments". Quotes do not make your arguments have any more validity.
You can argue to the death that the pythagorean theorem is wrong, but it still won't make it true. You are arguing Hyundais are bad, based on NO information or statistics.
Did you pull up next to a Tiburon at a stoplight, give them a dirty look, and then after thinking you were going to show them a thing or two realize that all you can see of them is their taillights that you'd forever try and ruin Hyundai? C'mon man, read something. Anything you read about these cars will disprove your religion of Hyundai hate.
So I guess to answer your question, trade-in value means far less to me than a company that's genuinely interested in making their customers happy and provides a solid product for a stupid low amount of money. I have not owned one, but from reading around these and other forums Honda hasn't acted that way in quite some time.
I buy a car to drive it for a long time. If I know I am going to keep a car for only 2-3 years, I lease it. Under that proposition, a Civic can be a good deal because there are some good leases available on them. But I've driven both cars, and I much rather would prefer to drive the Elantra over the past 4.5 years than the Civic EX that would have cost me thousands more.
At Honda, "We take them very seriously," says spokesman Andy Boyd about the South Koreans. "They're coming up the ladder, no question."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-03-22-korean-cars-usat_x.htm
Note also that Civic sales are down, while Hyundai's are up 14% so far this year even with an old lineup. Honda has stated they would rather cut production than tack on rebates, however--which helps protect prices and resale value, but doesn't protect market share.
I know of so many people that have had a dodge/chrysler only to have the ac go out rentlessly.
Chrysler/Dodge, Mazda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia all have longer warranties. I believe the others will follow.
I think I personally believe Honda and Toyota thus far conclude that the cost of extending the warranty two more years outweighs the profit benefit of whatever additional unit sales the improved warranty would generate. That seems simple and straightforward.
A lot of you act as though Hyundais (and Kias) are the worst made cars, and that you wouldn't trust them to take you around the block as far as reliability goes. If Hyundais and Kias were as unreliable as you insinuate, the corporation would go bankrupt from having to repair all of these vehicles. If Hyundai Motor Group only makes about $1000 on each new car they sell (which may be a realistic number, seeing as how many brands, like GM, actually lose money on cars and make it back with financing), and then had to have more than $1000 of repairs on vehicles over the 100,000 (or 60,000 if sold and then re-bought used) miles that would be covered on the warranty, Hyundai would not be the profitable company it is today. Do some math.
While I am sure that this is an overly-simplistic way of looking at this, to a certain extent it is true. Hyundai's warranty costs have to be less than the profit on their new cars. It isn't like they are making a crapload of money on oil changes and accessory installs at the dealerships.
Do the cars NEED warranties? While it is debatable if they need them in the sense of if they are going to have repairs along the way, it is certain that as far as the average consumer thinks: they do not.
What stops them from adding the longer warranties?
-It could be that the costs of adding the warranties outweighs the profit from the additional units. This thought is kind of weird in it of itself, because the average consumer would think that cars like Honda and Toyota aren't going to need warranties anyway. Their warranties aren't going to be used that much, seeing as how these cars are both extremely reliable, like Hyundai, so I doubt this is the reason why.
-It could be that the dealership networks would not want this to happen. When things do go wrong with the cars, it gives the dealership service departments revenues, and the sales department another sales avenue.
-It could be that the brands don't want to tarnish their image. The thought that they would add the warranties would make this brand detante that we are having between the different American / Japanese / Korean brands look like it is that much more volatile. Basically, if Toyota and Honda stand behind their cars more, it is not going to look like they make better cars to anyone, but that they are genuinely concerned about their competition from the backed-brands, i.e. Hyundai, and Kia.
-It could be that implementing such a drastic change in warranties would cost these brands a lot of money. They would have to change so much paperwork, marketing, and address many issues of Toyota/Honda buyers. For instance, if someone buys a car on June 30th, and the new warranty program kicks in on July 1st, the June 30th person may want to sue Toyota when their transmission goes out... Things that are easily won by Toyota, but that could cost the brand a lot in terms of word-of-mouth and red tape.
It may be any or all, or some combination of the above.
Out of all the people I know who have had a problem with their Honda after warranty expired, Honda either split the difference or covered the repair 100%. Honda may not offer official warranty that has longer terms, but Honda does step up to the plate when there are issues. All of V6 Accords with tranny problems are replaired by Honda for free, even after 3 years/36,000 miles.
On the other hand, Hyndai would try to get out of warranty coverage as it can. Prime example of Hyundai's useless 10 years powertrain warranty: I have a friend who has Kia Sportage, with 10 year power train warranty. Every time it rains her car/truck does not work properly. She had the dealership trace the problem to the main harness connecting to the tranny. The warranty covers the tranny, but not the wires that conect to it. She was out of $1500 for the diagnostic and repair. Is it fair? What is the warranty good for if she had to pay?
I wish Honda had "stepped up" to split the cost with me or even pay 100% for replacing the air conditioning condenser on my Civic, which failed with less then 5 years and 60,000 miles on the car. They did not--cost $800. It would have been covered 100% by the Hyundai warranty. They also didn't help me when the car needed a new clutch at 40k miles. I've never had a clutch wear out that fast. Sure, it's a wear item and not covered under Honda's warranty--even if it had a warranty after 36k miles. But since you seem to believe that manufacturers should routinely cover parts that aren't covered under warranty, like the wiring harness on the Sportage, Honda should have paid for most or all of the clutch replacement, right?
I have to challenge your statement that "all V6 Accords with tranny problems are replaired [sic] by Honda for free." Does that mean if I own a '97 Honda V6 and the tranny goes at 100k miles, Honda will fix it for free? That is extremely generous of Honda I think. I've never heard of such a generous program.
No manufacturer can deny warranty coverage if maintenance was performed outside of the dealership, or aftermarket items were installed. I think it is called Moss-Ferguson act.
Did you ever call Honda corporate and asked? Did you expect the dealer to do the asking for you? AFAIK Honda corporate always looks after its customers.
By the way a leaky condenser could have been due to road debris flying through it, or what not. Not even Hyundai's bumper-to-bumper will cover that.
However, I know it is not the case that Honda corporate always takes care of its customers. For some examples, take a look at the Honda Accord Hybrid discussion for how Honda has treated some of its customers who purchased its most expensive car, when they reported problems in the XM radio etc.
BTW, the condenser failed, period, according to the service tech. (Yes, Honda parts do fail.) Also, that same Civic was the only vehicle I have owned that showed significant body rust after less than five years. My '01 Elantra, driven through five Minnesota winters, shows zero signs of body rust. Maybe if I had complained to Honda corporate, they would have fixed the rust for free. :-^
Actually, they would have replaced the car for free, as everyone knows that Honda is covered for 5 years/ unlimited mileage against rust. The rust coverage is pretty plainly explained in the warranty section of the Owner's manual.
I am not saying that Honda parts never fail, I am saying that if the parts fail Honda will stand behind it. I had the window regulators fail on my 2002 Civic within the first 6 months. They were replaced under warranty, I called Honda corporate and complained. They offered free extended warranty to 7 years/70,000 miles with $0 deductible.
However, I know it is not the case that Honda corporate always takes care of its customers. For some examples, take a look at the Honda Accord Hybrid discussion for how Honda has treated some of its customers who purchased its most expensive car, when they reported problems in the XM radio etc.
XM radio is not a Honda product and may well be out of Honda's hands. I don't know what problems people have with XM radios, and I am not going to read through a ton of posts.
The dealer said it was my responsibility. Based on the warranty terms, that was fair. If I had known Honda always pays for failed parts that are out of warranty, or at least 1/2 of the cost, as you claim, I would have asked Honda to do that.
It was in your interest to get Honda to cover the repair. It was in no way dealer's interest to bat for you. Had you called Honda corporate they would have most likeley covered the repair, and you would have been one happy customer. Remeber "squeaky wheel gets the grease"
Just to be fair (and to get this slightly back more towards the Elantra/Civic debate and not the Hyundai/Honda in general debate), the Kenwood CD/MP3 player standard in the 2004 Elantra GT has been known to cease reliable playback of CD-R discs in either normal audio or MP3 modes, and Hyundai has regularly and without fail replaced the unit in every instance I have seen. I'm planning on taking advantage of it myself, since mine has just started to go. Hyundai has also shown that they've learned from that experience, as the Kenwood is no longer OEM equipment on 2005 models.
I ponder the experiences you describe and wonder whether the fixes are due more to Honda's good nature or your "squeakiness". Perhaps you are very good at negotiating what you want.
I ponder the experiences you describe and wonder whether the fixes are due more to Honda's good nature or your "squeakiness". Perhaps you are very good at negotiating what you want.
The latter.
I think Hyundai is actually quite concerned about their image too. It's a key part of becoming a better auto manufacturer. I think even the people that don't like Hyundai have to agree that Hyundai is *trying* to improve their image. The disagreement, however, comes down to whether or not they are being successful in that endeavor.
Elantra GLSes normally sell for about $12,000 (-Edmunds TMV), and Civic LXes normally sell for about $16,000.
Considering that these cars have about the same level of sophistication and equipment, and also factoring in that the Hyundai's price includes the 100,000 mile warranty, where is that other money going?
Does a Civic cost $4000 more than an Elantra to build? I'd guess no.