U.S. Auto Market News and Reviews

andres3

suydam said:

What did one former dealer use to call it here, “no sale green”? Studies of car color choices consistently show that most people prefer white, black, and silver, with some blues and reds thrown in. Dealers know this so they try to stock their lots accordingly. We are a boring group these days! Or maybe those 3 colors are perceived as looking upscale.

So if a dealership only has yellow, green, red, and blue available on the lot, what's a gray/silver/black/white color buyer to do? Order a car and be patient, or buy something else? If they don't care about their car color any more than the toaster, why not just get the color?

Michaell

andres3 said:

Michaell said:

When my wife was looking for a new car a couple of years ago, we looked at the Subaru website to see what colors were available. She found one called "Wilderness Green" that appealed to her. Checked the local inventory and one dealer had the exact car she wanted (bigger engine, right color and options) on the way from Indiana. We placed a $500 refundable deposit on it and waited 2 weeks for it to arrive.

I like that Subaru color. The Forester also has a nice green.

WE almost got a Tungsten Outback, which is a cross between beige and silver.

You mean, something like this?

Michaell

When we were shopping for the Outback, I showed my wife the color palette on-line. The green was the only color that appealed to her.

Since the one we bought was coming in, and I wanted her to test drive it before signing any paperwork, we headed to the dealer where she could drive either a blue or a burgundy Outback with the same equipment and interior color.

berri

Had to laugh at the two different pictures you just posted. One is a beautiful day, one has snow on the ground. That's Denver

Michaell

berri said:

Had to laugh at the two different pictures you just posted. One is a beautiful day, one has snow on the ground. That's Denver

Funny you should notice that .. the picture without snow was taken in November; the one with snow, February.

Could have easily reversed them, however. We'll get snow from September through May in any given year.

suydam

andres3 said:

suydam said:

What did one former dealer use to call it here, “no sale green”? Studies of car color choices consistently show that most people prefer white, black, and silver, with some blues and reds thrown in. Dealers know this so they try to stock their lots accordingly. We are a boring group these days! Or maybe those 3 colors are perceived as looking upscale.

So if a dealership only has yellow, green, red, and blue available on the lot, what's a gray/silver/black/white color buyer to do? Order a car and be patient, or buy something else? If they don't care about their car color any more than the toaster, why not just get the color?

Such an unlikely scenario these days! Every dealership I’ve looked at has a sea of silver, Black, and white cars, with a few other colors sprinkled in.

uplanderguy

I'm not in the market for an Equinox--not in the market for anything now--but if I was, I would absolutely buy that bright green metallic offered, as shown in the pic last page or so. That's such a daring color for Chevy that I'm sure it'll be gone in six months, LOL.

uplanderguy

A couple random observations:

1) Why doesn't Consumer Reports report reliability separate for models with choices of different engines and transmissions as they used to? For instance, models with 4 and V6 available (ex.: Impala) show no differentiation, although the engine and transmissions are different. I used to goof when these would show differences, say, in audio system reliability but I think it's useful for models with different engines and transmissions.

2) Not really a question per se, but does anybody remember when Edmunds had little books of used-car pricing and new car invoice pricing on the newsstand? A little bigger than a TV guide and on paper like coloring books? I have to say, there was nothing else like it in the general marketplace at the time.. I remember dickering with a dealer over what the Edmunds book was saying versus what the dealer was saying, and of course the dealer pooh-poohing the Edmunds numbers. Edmunds has come a long way for sure.

suydam

CR used to do that. They don’t now?

uplanderguy

To be fair, I don't have the April Auto Issue with me now, but their summer 2017 Used Car Buying Guide does not.

berri

I used to use those Edmunds pricing guides when I was young

imidazol97

I used them back in the 70s. I was pricing out invoice and retail on various GM models, Malibu, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick and came to the conclusion that the difference in pricing was because of added features -- the ones that shared a platform were pretty much priced the same. I remember spending hours going through the pricing in those books.

I also recall having to Uptown in Cincinnati to find the Edmunds books at a magazine/bookstore around the Univ. of Cincinnati off campus area. Don't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. But I remember another company or two having put out similar invoice pricing guides and deciding one of them was fake news--it said the cars were invoiced much, much higher than Edmunds indicated. I believe it was a slicker paper and a larger area page format than Edmunds. Edmunds was able to fit in a large pocket such as a coat pocket to take along to a dealer.

uplanderguy

I remember using one when I bought my first new car, an '81 Monte Carlo. I remember that the Monte came standard with a clock and full wheel covers, while those--well, at least the full wheelcovers--were optional on the Grand Prix. Who would buy a Grand Prix with dog dish caps? LOL

andres3

The '03 Accords had 6 - CD changers in the V6 models, while giving the common folk a single CD player in the 4-cylinder models.

I would give CR the benefit of the doubt as similar models are still not identical. Probably different in ways we don't even know, like the routing of @graphicguy Cadillac wiring that allegedly only affected a small number of CTS models.

uplanderguy

I know that in GM products, the engine had nothing to do with the sound system.

But I think if a car offers a turbo and non-turbo, or a six and a four, it is logical to differentiate at least engine and transmission issues between the two, as CR used to do.

andres3

uplanderguy said:

I know that in GM products, the engine had nothing to do with the sound system.

But I think if a car offers a turbo and non-turbo, or a six and a four, it is logical to differentiate at least engine and transmission issues between the two, as CR used to do.

I have a feeling the sample sizes are getting too small. Too many dealers pushing the "eco" engines on the lot. At Subaru it seemed like they had at least ten 2.5 liter engines for every 3.6. At BMW, last time I went, same ratio (if not 30:1) for the turbo 4 vs. the turbo 6. Accord V6 was pretty rare, as most everyone settles for the 4 cylinder model.

berri

I think a big reason a V6 is perhaps a bit unusual is that it doesn't need it in most situations and Toy-onda 4 bangers are pretty bullet proof.

uplanderguy

Just as an example, I bought two 2015 Cruzes for my daughters (down to one now since her accident). I believe the majority of Cruzes were turbos, but it would've been nice to see what they reported the differences as. The transmissions are different too, between turbo and non-turbo, from 2011-2016. I bought non-turbos, thinking that in the long run, and for young female drivers, the simpler the better. Really good deals on them coming off lease this past summer, and two excellent Chevy service departments near me.

uplanderguy

I do remember a few years back, they said the Accord V6 was "worse than average" which set heads spinning.

I agree that sample sizes of the 'fringe' models (V6's, non-turbos, etc.) are probably shrinking so they just don't comment on them individually anymore.

suydam

CR has dumbed down their whole magazine, starting a few years back, which is why I no longer subscribe to it. Their April car issue used to have pages and pages of useful info. Then they moved all of that onto their digital site (which was an extra subscription). The reason given was “to make it simpler and easier to read”. So I gave up. I’m sure they still have all that info, but I have no idea if it can be accessed any more.

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

Just as an example, I bought two 2015 Cruzes for my daughters (down to one now since her accident). I believe the majority of Cruzes were turbos, but it would've been nice to see what they reported the differences as. The transmissions are different too, between turbo and non-turbo, from 2011-2016. I bought non-turbos, thinking that in the long run, and for young female drivers, the simpler the better. Really good deals on them coming off lease this past summer, and two excellent Chevy service departments near me.

A friend of mine is in the process of buying a 2016 Cruze LS for her daughter - ex Enterprise rental, 28,000 miles for $12,400.

PF_Flyer

Do you currently own a Mitsubishi vehicle? If so, a reporter would love to ask you a few questions. Please send a note to PR@edmunds.com by end of day Thursday, November 30 if you'd be willing to chat. Thanks!

uplanderguy

A friend of mine is in the process of buying a 2016 Cruze LS for her daughter - ex Enterprise rental, 28,000 miles for $12,400.

Wonder if that's the "Cruze Limited" (old style) or new style. I own a 2015 and a 2017. Some don't like the start/stop feature on the newer one, but the rear seat is much roomier than in the 2015. Everything about the 2015 feels heavier, for good or bad.

I paid $10,900 for the '15 Cruze LS with 18K miles on July 31. I actually preferred a '15 as the powertrain warranty was still 100K miles instead of 60K on the '16.

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

A friend of mine is in the process of buying a 2016 Cruze LS for her daughter - ex Enterprise rental, 28,000 miles for $12,400.

Wonder if that's the "Cruze Limited" (old style) or new style. I own a 2015 and a 2017. Some don't like the start/stop feature on the newer one, but the rear seat is much roomier than in the 2015. Everything about the 2015 feels heavier, for good or bad.

I paid $10,900 for the '15 Cruze LS with 18K miles on July 31. I actually preferred a '15 as the powertrain warranty was still 100K miles instead of 60K on the '16.

It's the old body style. Looks like there was some room to move on it. That's OK - I won't tell them of your deal.

uplanderguy

Thought this was an interesting read; at odds with CR but they focus on different things of course.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/2018-10best-cars-the-best-cars-for-sale-in-america-today-feature-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-ss-zl1-coupes-page-4?src=ha_m&mag=cdb&dom=fb

I don't care at all for the looks. But...I'm an old guy.

For a fair while, I subscribed to Car and Driver. But for a long time now, the only car mags I subscribe to are collector-car mags. Absolutely nothing new excites me anymore....except for a basic C7 coupe. I know it's a stereotype, but I love the all-American sense of it.

uplanderguy

I thumbed through CR's current new car buying issue tonight--on display through January. As I'd mentioned before, in six months my new Cruze went from much-better-than-average to much-worse-than-average. Also, in '16 Cruzes on their charts, there is no differentiation between the Cruze Limited and the Cruze, two different cars. Oh well. I know what I like and have had good luck with. In 11K miles my '17 Cruze has been back for....two oil changes.

suydam

Cruze is a nice vehicle. Enjoy it. For us it did not lease as well as the Volt, which we really love.

tlong

uplanderguy said:

I thumbed through CR's current new car buying issue tonight--on display through January. As I'd mentioned before, in six months my new Cruze went from much-better-than-average to much-worse-than-average. Also, in '16 Cruzes on their charts, there is no differentiation between the Cruze Limited and the Cruze, two different cars. Oh well. I know what I like and have had good luck with. In 11K miles my '17 Cruze has been back for....two oil changes.

I believe that CR's annual survey results first come out in the December issue each year (which is the book). So it is probably based upon another year's data. Perhaps cars that start good have problems emerge after a year or so in some cases.

uplanderguy

I thought even back then that their sample size on the redesigned Cruze couldn't have been very large. In April it was their first choice among compacts.

andres3

uplanderguy said:

I thought even back then that their sample size on the redesigned Cruze couldn't have been very large. In April it was their first choice among compacts.

I have long looked to CR to see if a manufacturer/model can be in CR's good graces for several years in a row, not just a year or 2. Even the Neon started out with a few red dots.

uplanderguy

They themselves didn't follow that rule.

Bottom line for me, based on my experience, I'll probably buy a new Cruze when my wife can't tolerate driving the daughter's old PT Cruiser (117K miles) any more. Right now she says she likes having a car that I'm not looking for parking lot nicks in all the time, LOL.

suydam

Good graces has nothing to do with it. It’s the results of their survey. If they get year after year good results, that will show up, same as with JD Power or anyone else.

andres3

suydam said:

Good graces has nothing to do with it. It’s the results of their survey. If they get year after year good results, that will show up, same as with JD Power or anyone else.

Absolutely agree. It is up to the manufacturer to make a product worthy of good reliability to get the good results.

That being said, there is some truth to models being generally better in terms of reliability across the board. Buying a poorly ranked vehicle doesn't automatically mean you'll get a lemon anymore. Chances are good you might still get a pretty good one.

berri

Maybe yes or no. Cars are closer, but I'm inclined to view it as good or neutral are closer, but bad is still generally best avoided. Bad is the bottom part of the Bell curve and I don't like dealing in that space personally, unless it is a one year phenomenon meaning some particular issue was pervasive enough to hurt that year only model.

berri

Whether CR, JD Powers or whatever, I'd like to see the problem issues weighted by the cost to repair impact. I think that would put the evaluation in a better to analyze and compare mode to a potential buyer. I think the way most are done now is just the "n" sample count in an area.

uplanderguy

Agree, berri, that would be interesting. But that's probably a lot for us to expect.

andres3

berri said:

Whether CR, JD Powers or whatever, I'd like to see the problem issues weighted by the cost to repair impact. I think that would put the evaluation in a better to analyze and compare mode to a potential buyer. I think the way most are done now is just the "n" sample count in an area.

I think cost in but one factor in the inconvenience of an unreliable car.

I think they should also factor in "breakdown" potential. Tow truck potential. Downtime potential.

dieselone

Holy cow, this forum has been dead for months and bam, I login to see hundreds posts.

I think the domestics are better for sure. Even Chrysler. I still have my 14 Ram and I’ve got 97k miles on it and it will have its first repair. An exhaust leak at the manifold while the engine is cold. Will see in the next week or so if the 100k powertrain warranty will cover it.

dieselone

It’s been a while since I’ve had an unreliable car, domestic or otherwise. My wife’s 13 Taurus was at 110k when she got a new company car and no issues whatsoever. She now has a 17 Sonata Hybrid. Which I like more than I thought I would and FE has been impressive in the low 40s overall.

dieselone

I do remember a few years back, they said the Accord V6 was "worse than average" which set heads spinning.

My dad has one of those accord v6s. He’s had major engine issues with it. Honda had to do a couple of significant engine repairs to it. I think it had to do with MDS and oil consumption. They covered it each time and extended the warranty to 150k . He has over 190k on it now and only uses it as a grocery getter. He was so happy with Honda’s service he stayed in the family and just bought a new Acura MDX.

Mr_Shiftright

There have been some Japanese clunkers. Certain Nissan Maximas, some years of Honda Odyssey, some Subarus---no one escapes making a problem-ridden car.

andres3

dieselone said:

I do remember a few years back, they said the Accord V6 was "worse than average" which set heads spinning.

My dad has one of those accord v6s. He’s had major engine issues with it. Honda had to do a couple of significant engine repairs to it. I think it had to do with MDS and oil consumption. They covered it each time and extended the warranty to 150k . He has over 190k on it now and only uses it as a grocery getter. He was so happy with Honda’s service he stayed in the family and just bought a new Acura MDX.

What is MDS?

tlong

Mr_Shiftright said:

There have been some Japanese clunkers. Certain Nissan Maximas, some years of Honda Odyssey, some Subarus---no one escapes making a problem-ridden car.

Although it does seem that Toyota is better than almost everybody in this regard. Not that I'd want to buy one of their cars.

Apparently Honda reliability has been declining last few years, and Acura's sedans have been pretty horrible, which is a big change from when I had my 2005 Acura TL.

dieselone

MDS = Multi Displacement System err...... cylinder deactivation. Actually, I think Honda calls it VCM= Variable Cylinder Management.

Ram calls it MDS, sorry for the confusion

andres3

dieselone said:

MDS = Multi Displacement System err...... cylinder deactivation. Actually, I think Honda calls it VCM= Variable Cylinder Management.

Ram calls it MDS, sorry for the confusion

Not all V6's had that, that was like the eco/hybrid model or something.

dieselone

I think most of the models with the 3.5 v6 did unless they had a manual trans.

circlew

Tesla, Porsche top Consumer Reports automotive satisfaction survey

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/12/21/tesla-porsche-top-consumer-reports-automotive-satisfaction-survey/969301001/

Buyers of Tesla, Porsche and Genesis luxury vehicles are the happiest car owners in the U.S.

So says a new study by Consumer Reports, which ranked automotive brands based on a comprehensive owner satisfaction study.

Acura, the luxury brand offered by Honda, ranked the lowest of 30 brands.

Unlike Consumer Reports' widely-followed Reliability Survey, this study doesn't rank automakers based on quality or dependability.

Instead, it rates auto brands based on how they performed against car buyers' expectations in the 2015 through 2018 model years. It incorporates feedback on the driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio and climate systems.

"Owner satisfaction is really a measurement of whether or not the car fulfilled on its promise," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports. "Did it disappoint you? Did you get more than you thought? Did you get less than you thought?"

The full list (owner satisfaction scores out of 100):

1. Tesla (90)

2. Porsche (85)

3. Genesis (81)

4. Chrysler (78)

5. Audi (76)

6. Mazda (76)

7. Subaru (76)

8. Toyota (76)

9. Honda (75)

10. Lincoln (75)

11. Mini (73)

12. Ram (73)

13. Kia (72)

14. Chevrolet (72)

15. BMW (72)

16. GMC (72)

17. Ford (70)

18. Lexus (70)

19. Volvo (69)

20. Dodge (68)

21. Jeep (68)

22. Mercedes-Benz (67)

23. Volkswagen (67)

24. Hyundai (67)

25. Buick (66)

26. Cadillac (64)

27. Infiniti (60)

28. Mitsubishi (58)

29. Nissan (58)

30. Acura (58)

Michaell

circlew said:

Tesla, Porsche top Consumer Reports automotive satisfaction survey

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/12/21/tesla-porsche-top-consumer-reports-automotive-satisfaction-survey/969301001/

Buyers of Tesla, Porsche and Genesis luxury vehicles are the happiest car owners in the U.S.

So says a new study by Consumer Reports, which ranked automotive brands based on a comprehensive owner satisfaction study.

Acura, the luxury brand offered by Honda, ranked the lowest of 30 brands.

Unlike Consumer Reports' widely-followed Reliability Survey, this study doesn't rank automakers based on quality or dependability.

Instead, it rates auto brands based on how they performed against car buyers' expectations in the 2015 through 2018 model years. It incorporates feedback on the driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio and climate systems.

"Owner satisfaction is really a measurement of whether or not the car fulfilled on its promise," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports. "Did it disappoint you? Did you get more than you thought? Did you get less than you thought?"

The full list (owner satisfaction scores out of 100):

1. Tesla (90)

2. Porsche (85)

3. Genesis (81)

4. Chrysler (78)

5. Audi (76)

6. Mazda (76)

7. Subaru (76)

8. Toyota (76)

9. Honda (75)

10. Lincoln (75)

11. Mini (73)

12. Ram (73)

13. Kia (72)

14. Chevrolet (72)

15. BMW (72)

16. GMC (72)

17. Ford (70)

18. Lexus (70)

19. Volvo (69)

20. Dodge (68)

21. Jeep (68)

22. Mercedes-Benz (67)

23. Volkswagen (67)

24. Hyundai (67)

25. Buick (66)

26. Cadillac (64)

27. Infiniti (60)

28. Mitsubishi (58)

29. Nissan (58)

30. Acura (58)

Interesting that both Infiniti and Nissan finished towards the bottom.

andres3

Michaell said:

circlew said:

Tesla, Porsche top Consumer Reports automotive satisfaction survey

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/12/21/tesla-porsche-top-consumer-reports-automotive-satisfaction-survey/969301001/

Buyers of Tesla, Porsche and Genesis luxury vehicles are the happiest car owners in the U.S.

So says a new study by Consumer Reports, which ranked automotive brands based on a comprehensive owner satisfaction study.

Acura, the luxury brand offered by Honda, ranked the lowest of 30 brands.

Unlike Consumer Reports' widely-followed Reliability Survey, this study doesn't rank automakers based on quality or dependability.

Instead, it rates auto brands based on how they performed against car buyers' expectations in the 2015 through 2018 model years. It incorporates feedback on the driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio and climate systems.

"Owner satisfaction is really a measurement of whether or not the car fulfilled on its promise," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports. "Did it disappoint you? Did you get more than you thought? Did you get less than you thought?"

The full list (owner satisfaction scores out of 100):

1. Tesla (90)

2. Porsche (85)

3. Genesis (81)

4. Chrysler (78)

5. Audi (76)

6. Mazda (76)

7. Subaru (76)

8. Toyota (76)

9. Honda (75)

10. Lincoln (75)

11. Mini (73)

12. Ram (73)

13. Kia (72)

14. Chevrolet (72)

15. BMW (72)

16. GMC (72)

17. Ford (70)

18. Lexus (70)

19. Volvo (69)

20. Dodge (68)

21. Jeep (68)

22. Mercedes-Benz (67)

23. Volkswagen (67)

24. Hyundai (67)

25. Buick (66)

26. Cadillac (64)

27. Infiniti (60)

28. Mitsubishi (58)

29. Nissan (58)

30. Acura (58)

Interesting that both Infiniti and Nissan finished towards the bottom.

Seems to me that these ratings follow the reliability ratings rather closely if you dig in deeper a bit. People expect and perceive Acura, Nissan, and Infiniti to be more reliable brands, but lately in CR they've done poorly in the reliability surveys. Hence, the low satisfaction.

People expected their Chrysler's to be problematic or complete garbage (not sure why they bought anyway), but perhaps they have gotten better lately, hence the higher rating here (outperforming expectations).

I think Tesla owners would be happy no matter how the car performs, as long as it meets their efficiency expectations (no gas).

dieselone

People expected their Chrysler's to be problematic or complete garbage (not sure why they bought anyway), but perhaps they have gotten better lately, hence the higher rating here (outperforming expectations).

You can throw me in that group. I've never held Chrysler/Ram's quality in high regard. Why did I buy it? I just really liked how the Ram looked and drove vs the alternatives. I decided upfront that my desire to own it out weighed the risks. If it turned out to be a lemon, oh well, I would have traded it in on something else.

Like you mentioned, I've been impressed (surprisingly so) that in 98k miles over the 4 years I've had it, I've only replaced a few light bulbs. So my satisfaction has been high enough, that I've decided that I will keep my current Ram until I can at least look at the redesigned model coming out late this year or early 2019.