Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

1162163165167168473

Comments

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    All good points.

    And

    When Ram offers a 1500 class PU with a diesel, Ford and GMC will be scrambling. I don't think Eco Boost will cut it.

    That is for SURE..plus there is the longevity potential of the oil burner over the gas job...Eco Boost will always be the underdog..pleasing only those who hate diesels at any cost. i.e. biting off their nose to spite their face.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Wow, I think there was some bad luck involved given a few of those repairs.
    Still, 28+ grand TCO over 89k miles is still not too shabby, eh?

    Your bros was probably wise with his strategy..so much heat is created when you turbo a gas engine..Heat has to constantly be dealt with and not ignored. Any safeguard system that fails during normal operating conditions, can quickly leave a trail of big $ repairs in its wake, and is a grey area...Even if the dealer warranties everything, it still is of little comfort knowing how many potential long-life miles you have been robbed of from..say..one over-heating..
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    fintail, gagrice - care to chime in here? You don't think it's unfair to use the 13.5 mpg number to represent the MDX?

    I have no interest in an MDX. I would guess many soccer moms only get about 13.5 MPG. Sitting waiting for kids to get out of school. Not really popular around here. I find the debate boring comparing apples to oranges. I would rather debate the different hardwoods used to make fine acoustic guitars. That is about as relevant as mileage of a gas vehicle that has no diesel counterpart. If Honda had any decent engineers we may have had a diesel MDX or Pilot to compare.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    ..."That is for SURE..plus there is the longevity potential of the oil burner over the gas job...Eco Boost will always be the underdog..pleasing only those who hate diesels at any cost. i.e. biting off their nose to spite their face."...

    And we have just had a twilight zone example of the truth of what you are saying !! .
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Yes I think what does not get too well discussed is how much better a combination of turbo and diesel is over turbo and gasser (excessive heat being the elephant in the room).

    I personally would not get a turbo gasser, if I cared about longer term reliability and durability. It is another hidden factor that they will advocate using a turbo gasser because it allows smaller displacement at the consequence of even further wear and tear. In other words one should have used a much bigger displacement.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Mind you...for what little (in the larger scheme of things) extra fuel economy is reaped with DI, so too are the costs down the road for a lot more expensive fuel pumps (due to considerably higher psi requirements) and fuel injectors (for the handling of the same reason). Actually, this appies to both diesel and gas, technically. It is generally acknowledged that the newer HPFP TDI owners have higher maintenance (and repair costs if they were necessary), than pre-HPFP's.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    I do not think there can be any doubt there. I will let you know on the 200,000 to 300,000 miles range for the 2003 TDI.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    True, but along with what Steve said about the 4's being a little easier on the tranny, when they offered 4's there was no 4 sp auto. They did have a 5 speed stick, although I think precious few were sold that way..at least in Cda. What a good combo tho to help FE and urge..

    Anyway, the troublesome Chrysler autos were those notorious Ultramatics? (if I have the name right) 4 sp autos. And Chrysler criminally continued to sell them as designed for years before making enough changes in them that finally got them so they would fail outta wty. Carrying either a full passenger load all/most the time or a single driver who pulled a 1200-1500 lb trailer often , had the greatest percentage of failures. Those too who only followed the oil change interval on those autos..if you doubled up twice sooner, the re and re even that helped those trannys a lot.

    Ford has done the same thing. GM too, has their own deliberate negligences (not a word but seemed to fit) ..very few really clean hands in the auto moto world..
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Indeed all the folks I know that had them had A/T's.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    We actually knew a couple with one, but I thought it was a 4 speed stick. Foggy memory. They drove a VW rabbit pickup before the minivan, so they did like oddball cars. :shades:

    Ironically, the underpinnings of the Rabbit pickup live on in the various VW Caddy flavors, all of which are vans now I think. And diesel flavors have been available since the first generation.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    In the shorter-term, concern about carbon build-up, too.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    There's a marketing idea though. Since "reliability" is assumed, rightly or wrongly, for diesel engines, VW and the rest should do a Hyundai warranty on diesel drivetrains. Make it 200k and advertise the heck out of it.

    Perhaps..but on the other hand, probably a (too) high a percentage of those 'new- give-the-diesel-a-try' customers who only go to the corner store type distances, (literally 5 min trips) be it to the store or worse..work, cuz its every day 5 days/10 x's a week of pure unintentional abuse on an engine that could never properly get warmed up enough (exasperated by the basic efficiency with which the oil burner goes about its job) in the winter..Hell, even gas jobs in those situations can't begin to expect the same longevity potential/$ invested over the life of the engine in those circumstances..And who plugs their car in every night even if it is only expected to go down to 20¼, raise your hand...I'm holding mine up, but I'm a distinct minority among the masses...plus I do that even with presently owning a gas job.

    And even if you do plug the car in failthfully at home, it probably got a cold start to go the corner store cuz that was probably an impromptu trip. Same with being at work, the poor bugger is still gonna get a cold start for long 5 min jaunt home, cuz few places of work have plug-ins.

    These types of conditions really aren't conducive to diesel longevity, and mfgrs would still get caught out on a few too many repairs I suspect if they did try a 200k wty.

    Otherwise a good idea, Steve. who knows...maybe good enough that the sales success with all the other customers who drive 30 min or more one way all the time, would be enough to offset these wty costs for the minority?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    It mighta been a 4 sp, Steve..on that I too have enough hardened arteries that my memory can't be trusted..
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://youtu.be/EH_XMu6QVLc

    "Mid-range grunt is terrific..."

    They say it's not the quietest diesel, but should be great for towing.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    True enough.. the new ones sure do run clean. When I read of someone complaining that they hate the smell of spent diesel, you know that they are referring to the older tech. Little by little that memory should fade..

    might take a bit longer for that tech to filter down thru the (locally owned) semi's pulling shipping contr's in downtown New York though..

    Speaking of which, I watched an interesting documentary about a lot of those guys starting to convert to NG for doing those local pick up/drop off deliveries. Win win I say..

    Steve, have you noticed fewer asthmatic triggers with the newer diesel TDI's? Wasn't it your wife that suffers from that?
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,963
    Ford is putting a diesel in it's new Transit (Econoline replacement), as well as introducing a new Transit Connect. It would be a great time to put a diesel in the Transit Connect; perhaps on year two of the model?
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 2,642
    I think shoehorning the transit's 3.2 diesel into the transit connect might not be possible. Ford has not announced any other/smaller diesels for the US market.

    18 Tesla X Performance / 18 Tesla 3 Performance / 11 BMW Z4 "the horse"

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,963
    Yeah, I think you're right. It's an inline five-cylinder, and I think that would be too large to squeeze in there. They did say they were holding off on diesels to see how the market accepts other intros.

    Pipe dreaming, here.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    No allergy problems here in a long time (and we got wafted by a stinkpot 4x4 pickup this afternoon). But we don't get much traffic anyway, much less exotic rigs like Volkswagens. :shades: Just got a new crop of inhalers in the mail today and none of the last ones got much use so it's all good. And if we sat on a bench by a "clean diesel", hopefully we wouldn't notice unless I happened to see a TDI badge. My latest theory is that the gas stove we got 3 years ago has helped with the fumes issue. :)

    And yeah, I never plug my cars in and we do too many 5 minute trips in the winter in below 20° weather.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    ..."Now that's funny."...

    What's so funny is seeing this topic giving you so much.... gas ! ;) :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    A couple things he mentions. The shifter on the center console. I have a hard time liking the column shifter on the ML and my Sequoia. He failed to mention the previous attempt to sell a JGC diesel left out several states including CA. Looking at average prices for the 2007-08 JGC diesel, they are about $4000 higher with equal miles and trim level to the V6. So the $4500 premium will only cost you about $500 over 4-5 years of ownership. You should be able to recoup that with fuel savings the first year.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    It will be interesting to see where it takes its place among the other TDI's, diesels, bluetecs that will be and are already on the market. The mentioned price in the video is app 4 to 16% over one VW Touareg TDI variant (1 of 3)

    I am not sure why he says the shifting is persnickety. The other diesels (BMW X5 35D, MB ML350, VW T) are pretty second nature once the drill is imprinted or briefed.

    I can see it being true if you have to find a specific (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,) position. I saw there is ANOTHER shifter. That could/can be a real trick with gloves on and a thick parka and in the cold. Or more inconveniently when you want to switch between both.

    As a comparison, the VW T TDI 8 speed A/T in sequential: bump forward for UPshift, bump back for DOWNshift. Each bump is one gear. Want to do D/S?AND let the automatic be automatic? It is a instinctive LATERAL bump left/right to select the sequential /automatic gate.

    Now another question is what % will be diesels ?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    The mentioned price in the video is app 4 to 16% over one VW Touareg TDI variant (1 of 3)

    The diesel is only going to be offered in the top Limited and Overland. So $50K is probably competitive with an comparably equipped Touareg TDI.

    You have to go to the 2nd level Touareg to get leather and NAV. My guess is it will be very competitively priced with the Touareg and less than the ML and X5 by about $10k. I just wish our dealers would get a Touareg TDI in to test drive. I could be happy with one I am sure.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Just for the benefit of the wider audience (you undoubtedly know this already) the VW T TDI comes in Sport: nav ($48,990), w/o nav ($46,925), Luxury ($52,930) and Executive ($58,655) trims. (9 total trims)
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Just configuring the Touareg as I would want it the MSRP is over $53k. I would get the LUX so I could have the saddle brown leather. I would want to trade the 19" wheels for the 18" on the Sport. I would really rather have 17" wheels to get a better ride. Not sure VW will be able to deliver what I want. After I test drive one first. I do like the looks of them.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    That saddle brown is indeed a good base for whatever of the 8 or so exterior colors one could want and/or specify. I got the 18 in wheels (19 ,20 in also) and the smaller the better and for a lot of reasons. The 17 in's would be better still, but I do not know the specifications used to get over the BIG brakes issue i.e.., 17 in's might be too small.

    Some arcane pieces of information might be the choice of interior colors and/or the panoramic sun roof.

    Longer story short, I have grown to like the darker color interior with NO panoramic sun roof for longer distance travel, more soothing. (I have gone app 965 to 1100 miles in a day in both light and dark interiors) We do have the white Jetta TDI with light beige interior and a shade able sunroof but the bright lights can be a tad overbearing, except on dark to over cast days. I think if I had closer and more frequent access to PCH aka cruising la vida loca I would go in for the light interior and PANORAMIC sunroof.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,194
    Interesting comment, I just had a rental a Ford Escape with the 1.6L ecoboost engine. I was impressed with the power that little 1.6L had. I havae driven a MKS with the 3.5 Eco Boost twin turbo and was impressed with it, the only thing I was not impressed was the MPG.. The Escape I had averaged 21, that was 200 miles on the highway and city... Not very good
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    I 'm sure they bill the Escape @ 21 mpg as " eco" friendly as opposed to a less than eco friendly ah 22 mpg !! ;) :sick: Really quite the shame, a 1.5 L TDI or less would be closer to the 75 mpg EPA numbers.

    As a practical matter, I think you would have to flog it a tad, but slightly more aggressive driving is good for TDI's, i.e., closer to 55-58 mpg. On the 2003 TDI ( 1.9 L) I have keep speeds @ 75 mpg with bursts to 85 and posted up to 59 mpg , literally in one case trying to stay under the "radars".
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    MKS with the 3.5 Eco Boost twin turbo ... averaged 21

    That's actually not bad for an enormous, quick vehicle that can run on regular octane.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    That's actually not bad for an enormous, quick vehicle that can run on regular octane.

    I think he was referring to the Escape with 1.6L eco boost only getting 21 MPG. That would be disappointing in a small CUV.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    edited February 2013
    Here is an example of my heartburn over ecoboost.

    Fusion 1.6 gets 16 city 37 Highway 25 overall. (CR numbers - real world not EPA). Now on the surface you could say that isn't so bad, good for Ford the ecoboost is working. But what if you went at this a different way and looked at an Accord V-6. No fancy turbo just more displacement. The 2013 V-6 Accord is rated at 16 city 39 highway and 26 overall (CR for all numbers for consistency).

    So what benefit does the 1.6 liter ecoboost provide if it can't match the fuel eocnomy of a a 3.5 liter v-6. Is it fast? Well they (CR) get it to 60 in 8.9 seconds, so not too bad, that will feel peppy and when in the sweet spot it may even feel kinda quick. But the V-6 Accord does the same task in 6.3 seconds (with an old school automatic not a fancy dsg). So basically the least efficient Accord beats the most efficient Fusion in economy

    Now lets compare the fastest Fusion 240 hp 2.0 turbo - quick at 7.4 to 60. That will feel quite peppy, but it drinks a lot of gas (14 city 33 highway - CR). Lets look at the slowest Accord (I4 CVT). it is just a tad slower at 7.7 to 60 and the manual is faster than the Fusion (don't have CR numbers for the current Accord MT but in the past the MT has been significantly faster and more efficient than the AT). So the slowest Accord is about as fast (little faster or a little slower depending on transmission) as the fastest Fusion.

    I just don't see where ecoboost is helping at all. The numbers are about the same for all the ecoboost I4's. The V-6 is not as bad, it actually gets very slightly better mpg and acceleration in the F150, but how will it hold up in that application?

    Ford would be much better served with turbo diesel engines. The turbo gas engines are not terribly impressive in the larger models (compared to a V-8) and much worse for the I4 versions.

    I just used Honda as an example - Nissan, Toyota and probably Mazda are fairly similar.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    I agree with your post. I think Ford wasted a lot of R&D on Eco-Boost. They offer a good variety of very efficient diesel engines all over the World. Spend a bit of that R&D to pass our emissions. Though I just read they are going to offer their new inline 5 cylinder diesel in the upcoming Transit van that debuts this Fall.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20121218/BUSINESS01/121218037/Ford-small-diesel-eng- ine-Transit
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just re-read it and indeed, that was for the Escape.

    I think the 1.6l is undersized, so it has to stay in the boost just to move around all that weight.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Indeed that is true. In effect, flight nurse is hearing it from multiple perspectives, as I summarized exactly the same issue in prior posts.

    Not to rain on YOUR parade, but to complete why a normally aspirated vehicle like your 4 cylinder to 6 cylinder Honda Accord and 6 speed M/T should be more durable and reliable is that a turbo gasser has to deal with more heat disposal albeit not as well as turbo diesel does. Driven well a 6 speed MT is more durable and reliable and more fuel efficient. So the unscheduled cost variables should be cheaper . Obviously higher mpg is better than lower mpg.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    Earth Dreams - cheesy name but effective tech. Both efficient and quick.

    CR tested teh F150 V8 vs. V6 EB and mileage was identical. At least it didn't go down.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    CR tested teh F150 V8 vs. V6 EB and mileage was identical. At least it didn't go down.

    Don't you see the problem there? A naturally aspirated V8 will not have the issues of the V6 EB. It has been a very rocky start for the folks that bought the F150 EB. Shuddering and going into limp mode are the common ailments.

    And what will it cost to repair the EB over the plain vanilla V8? And to top it off the EB F150 costs $3000 more than the top of the line V8 model. No chance of breaking even on that one if it does not get a lot better mileage.

    What some companies will do to avoid doing the smart thing and using diesel. The Germans are beating the socks off the domestics and only Fiat Chrysler sees that.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm not sure if all of that info is accurate. The EB V6 did well in tests, torque and towing, etc.

    The take rate is also higher than expected. If it were all bad that wouldn't be the case.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    It was bad for those that caught on fire. If I paid $4000 more for Eco boost in an Escape and it got no better mileage than the cheapo 2.5L 4 banger, I would not be a happy camper. The 2.0L turbo is $9000 more and requires premium. hmmmm My BIL has a standard Escape they love. It gets 29 MPG on trips regularly. Why fix something that ain't broke.

    Ford Motor says that it has pinpointed the cause of overheating in the 2013 Fusion sedans and Escape crossovers with a 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine, ending a mystery that began with a big recall last week.
    It says the issue can be fixed with a simple software update.

    Starting next week, owners of the 89,153 vehicles recalled will be urged to go to a Ford dealer to have the car's electronic controls "flashed" with new software aimed at ensuring the cooling system won't allow the turbocharged engine to dangerously overheat.


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/12/10/ford-recall-escape-fusion-ec- oboost/1759063/
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    "It says the issue can be fixed with a simple software update."

    If it was so simple, Ford, then why allow such a significant glitch to be released to the customer without proper pre-release test-time invested? Oh...that's right...once again, we're the guinea pigs and any negative ramifications (down the road engine longevity and efficiency) as a result of your too-anxious to recoup R&D $'s, are on our dime...errr...make that dollar.....actually, make that huge frig dollars.. pffftttt

    Tell ya what Ford, give me my money back, and let's start over. I'll buy a brand new one that has the proper software flash...there..how does it feel to actually own the costs that you so easily and without conscience are prepared to just dump on the innocent and unknowing consumer?

    This article is a thankful reminder (altho admittedly not really needed) why I started my boycott of Ford in 1989, (one year after I bought my 88 F150....after only a few years earlier having bought my 85000$ big truck) when the paint just flaked off and they made excuse after excuse to not do the right thing and reimburse me when I had to pay to repaint it in order to sell it. I told them I would NEVER forget this, and it was a promise I have kept.

    And just so I am not accused of necessarily singling out Ford, the other two certainly have created a good number of their own boycotters I'm sure. I've just never been crapped on by them to the extent that Ford did.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Tell ya what Ford, give me my money back, and let's start over.

    That sounds reasonable. An engine that has overheated will suffer internal damage to cylinder walls etc. It may not show up for 50k or 100k miles. It will more than likely show up after the warranty is gone. So this recall will not fix the damage that may already be done.

    a good number of their own boycotters I'm sure.

    Mine was Toyota and Honda. I held a grudge against Toyota for the engine problems in my 1964 Toyota Land Cruiser, until I bought the Sequoia in 2007. I swore off Honda with a myriad of problems with my 1978 Accord. Then renting a 2010 Accord reconfirmed my feelings they are not great cars. I will not likely buy another GM vehicle after my experience with the 2005 GMC Hybrid PU. I owned 4 GM trucks prior to that one and was pleased. I think GM went in the toilet with the 1998 UAW Strike. Not on my likely buy list. I am ready to give Jeep a go with the GC diesel.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Damn, a modern day eco nightmare and all you can say is :

    ..."I'm not sure if all of that info is accurate. The EB V6 did well in tests, torque and towing, etc.

    The take rate is also higher than expected. If it were all bad that wouldn't be the case."...

    ???? :lemon:

    To quote a redundancy expert, Yogi Berra, "Its day sha foo all ober again" ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Unfortunately Ford is beta testing the engines with consumers.

    Others have had better luck, CR said BMW's 2.0T met their expectations for instance.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    I had a real bad experience with Ford Credit (bastards) so the last thing you'll see is me defending them.

    Also - as if diesels never had any issues. Look at the last effort from Jeep.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Ah no, YOU are saying that, certainly not I.

    ..."Also - as if diesels never had any issues. Look at the last effort from Jeep."...

    I also had severe issues with the (GASSERS) 1978 Honda Accord (inherited, not bought) and 1985 Toyota Camry even as it was WELL rated by CR.

    I am sure you remember vilifying me for Honda's and Toyota's negligence.

    The 2003 Jetta TDI was one of the few that did not sit under the (potential and actual) falling sword of Damocles.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Actually the last diesel effort with the GC was not bad. Just did not pass the Jackboots at CARB. The Liberty 4 cylinder problems all related to a flaky auto trans and add on emissions crap. The EU version of the Liberty diesel was well received.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,963
    985 Toyota Camry

    My family had one of those - two-tone brown. What a fantastic little car! We had nary a problem with it, even while our friends' families suffered nightmare after nightmare with their domestics, or the incredibly popular Accord of the time that would repeatedly melt its wiring for the flip-up headlight actuators. My dad fixed several of those (some pre-emptively) by re-wiring them with a heavier gauge wire and more appropriate fuse box.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • fintailfintail Posts: 51,432
    I'm not aware of any real issues in the near decade since MB brought diesel back to the US, either.

    Old co-worker who had an 04 (.5) Jetta TDI did have some problems, but mainly electrical - nothing with the powertrain.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Emissions crap is still part of the power train.

    The issue with the 1.6 EcoBoost is with the cooling system. So what? The result is also bad.

    But sticking with Fords, you don't remember the Power Stroke flame thrower?

    http://youtu.be/-dKLKm5i2ic

    Or the HD engine fires (even on newer models)?

    http://youtu.be/iuA442fKjcA

    This is not a gas or a diesel issue, it's a Ford issue.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    What a fantastic little car!

    One of the cable techs here still uses an '85 Camry as his DD.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2013
    Well (WAY) much later (28 or so years) I wish I then had YOURS even in two tone S--- brown. despite exquisite care it literally had EVERYHING go wrong in it. Loss of fuel mileage to 19.20 21 mpg. Lamps dying almost every other week. Brake pads and rotors wearing prematurely and often. Distributor issues causing the car to totally cut out on freeways more than once. Both sets of struts wearing out way before its time. Tires prematurely wearing. Soot build up despite less than 3,000 miles OCI's. Warping of valves, oil leaks replacing of pistons. Premature wearing of front and rear axle parts, etc etc. I will stop now. The 1978 Honda Accord was another abortion, the child lived. :mad: :sick: And then they grow up seeking revenge. ;)
This discussion has been closed.