Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Rating the reliability of a one year old?
"In terms of V-8's, I think GM does a better job than Ford."
You're entitled to that opinion, but Ford's Triton line and the 4.6 modular line are two really well built, well engineered engines. They don't sell over 1 million F series' each year because the engines are sub-par.
GM's V8's are nice too though. The LS line and the Northstar line are up there for sure.
I think your words were pretty clear.
If you want evidence of how the US has screwed up the environment, look at LA.
When you say someone has "screwed up" it sure looks like you're blaming someone! Nevertheless, I'll take you at your word that you meant something else.
Now back to the topic!
tidester, host
Lots of people smoke, does it make it good?
The whole f-Series sales thing is SUCH a JOKE! How many vehicles does the F-Series entail! Really a very useless sales figure to those who are hip to the range of vehicles included.
I'd take either V8, not over a BMW 8 though.
They don't. They sell a little over 800,000 units per year. GM sells nearly as many Silverados and Sierras - it's not because those engines are sub par, either.
If you're judging how well a car or engine is by sales number, I think you must concede that the CR-V is the better vehicle, since its total year-to-date numbers are better than the Escape's.
Because a lot of people buy them doesn't necessarily make them bad either. You'll need a better argument than that.
And why can't you compare apples and oranges? You can compare their shapes, sizes, weight, texture, taste etc. etc.
tidester, host
"You seem to be making the assumption that I am laying blame for the condition of LA. Like there is something we should have done to prevent it."
I am blaming someone, that is true. I suppose I should have used the word "shame" instead of "blame". But read the phrase that follows the one you quoted and that should be clear.
LA is polluted. We did it. It's an example of us making things dirty. That is all I said. Why that was so easy to accomplish is another topic for discussion. You seem to be making assumptions along those lines.
I think I understand this part...Here's what I have to say about the first sentence above: "You can point out theoretical problems with the calculations or little discrepancies,..."
You're saying that my complaint about using categories which Honda does not compete in is a little discrepancy. I disagree. It's a big discrepancy.
Sample size affects the possibility of error in a statistical report. However CR's statisticians have determined that 100 surveys is enough to be statistically sound. In other words, with that many surveys, the likelihood of error is so small, it isn't worth talking about. That is a "little discrepancy".
The fact that Honda does not compete in the areas where Ford ranked high in the JD Powers study is not a small thing. It makes comparison impossible.
Honda is a great company (yes, I own an Accord), but lets not be blind to the achievements of the domestic car companies:
Honda just released a zero-emissions vehicle. GM's EV1 has been on the road for 5 years...and it outperforms the Honda.
The new Honda Accord is a 240 HP, technological, i-VVT tour de force, but what about the Buick Regal GS? The Regal's low tech, supercharged 3.8L V-6 outperforms Honda's 3.0L, gets similar fuel economy, and has been around for almost 10 years.
Just something to ponder...
And if Honda supercharges its 3.0L, it would outperform the Regal GS. Considering that it's almost a full liter bigger than the Accord's engine, the fact that it needs a supercharger to perform better doesn't say much for the Buick's engine.
Actually, it probably wouldn't. Compression would have to be lowered to add a supercharger, and even with the extra power, the Honda would still have less torque and would peak at significantly higher RPM.
"...the fact that it needs a supercharger to perform better doesn't say much for the Buick's engine."
The fact that the current Regal has been on the road for almost 10 years and has always been more powerful (even without a S/C 'til this year) and just as economical as the Accord does say a lot.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take the 2003 Accord (6-speed coupe, thank you) over the Buick in a heartbeat. Just recognize that even the mighty Honda has to rob from Peter to pay Paul...
You're into the torque-is-everything mentality. Honda's V-6 is just as powerful as the 3.5L found in the much hyped Altima - and the performance numbers prove it. Less torque and a higher peak doesn't automatically mean it won't outperform the Buick.
"The fact that the current Regal has been on the road for almost 10 years and has always been more powerful (even without a S/C 'til this year) and just as economical as the Accord does say a lot."
Sans supercharger, the 3.8 makes 200hp and 225 lb-ft of torque. Last year's Accord's 3.0L made 200hp and 195 l-ft of torque. For an engine with a 3.8L displacement, its power output is acceptable at best. And who cares if it's been on the road for almost 10 years? That doesn't make it a tried and true product - it just means GM is slacking.
"WASHINGTON — The government has upgraded an investigation into more than 2 million General Motors cars with 3.8-liter engines after 44 owners complained that the engines caught fire. "
You can feel it in the way the Honda delivers power to the wheels.
Imagine you're about to get on the freeway onramp from an arterial. You're coasting at 35 MPH in 4th gear as you make the right turn onto the onramp...all clear...you floor it. But, instead of downshifting into 2nd gear like you expected, you're entry speed tells the computer to drop into 3rd. No forward lunge. No neck snap. As you watch the tach needle slowly climb through 2200 RPM, the Ford Festiva just turning the corner behind you comes right up on your bumper...he wants to get by!
A bead of sweat drips into your eye as you imagine the flat torque curve of the GM 3.8L, offering 90% of max torque from 900 RPM all the way to 5500 RPM.
"...Then we checked the numbers and saw that it was doing zero to 60 mph in seven seconds flat."
Pretty slow for a family sedan. If you want get-up-and-go more get the manual 6 (as you indicated you would).
You're going by this year and last. When re-designed models are released, they typically sell over 1 million of them for two or three years. Three F-Series models are included in those numbers. 150, 250, and 350. All the others are considered to be heavy trucks. GM does sell almost as many Silverados and Sierras. By that logic, Ford sells more Escapes and Tributes than Honda does CR-V's.
"I think CR only makes a statement like that when a vehicle has been besiged with recalls. (see Focus)"
(Also see Civic, Accord and Odyssey). They didn't hit those recalled vehicles with a poor reliability rating. The Civic had 4 or 5 recalls, the older Accord has had 2 or 3, and the Odyssey has had 3 or 4 (I think). Although, the Odyssey was rated pretty low in the beginning from what I understand.
"Sample size affects the possibility of error in a statistical report. However CR's statisticians have determined that 100 surveys is enough to be statistically sound. In other words, with that many surveys, the likelihood of error is so small, it isn't worth talking about. That is a "little discrepancy"."
The smaller the sample size, the greater the margin of error. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just use their 1 test vehicle for the sample and eliminate all margin of error?. (I just verified that with two Ph.D. Statisticians too!) It is not a "little discrepancy". I don't know how many Escape owners there were back at the time of their survey, but let's say there were 200,000. That means if 100 Escape owners returned their surveys, CR effectively sampled exactly 5 one-hundredths of a percent(.05%) of total owners.
I'd shut up about this if they would only offer a little more information about their numbers. Total number of received surveys for each vehicle would be a start. Their work is a little sloppy if you ask me.
All I was saying was sales numbers don't necessarily reflect the quality of a vehicle.
There are quite a few reasons some vehicles out sell others quality is only one of those reasons. Fleet sales and employee/supplier discounts are others. I live in Michigan and I can't tell you how many people drive vehicles from the big 3 because they really have to. (Don't want to offend the union guys!)We probably have more Aztecks on the road than any other area in the nation. Why? Cause it's a good lookin vehicle? Hmmmmmmm maybe. GM and their dearlers were embarassed no one was driving them. They actually gave them to employees to get them on the road!
Anyway, domestic sales don't mean diddly when it comes to quality of an American vehicle. On the other hand, if a foreign manufacturer can dominate the American market with a similarly priced vehicle, they MUST be doing something right.
"Or, if the manufacturer has a history of prolonged problems."
That's true, and I never said it did. It reflects personal preference.
"Or, if the manufacturer has a history of prolonged problems.""
So CR has the right to choose either one when evaluating a vehicle? That means if the Escape had no recalls, they could still give it a poor rating because the Focus has a past.
Seems fair to me!
The manufacturer's past has nothing to do with a new vehicle's reliability. Look at the new Civic if you want an example. Even the new CR-V is not of the same quality as the older version. Yet anyway.
I've had 3 Honda's 86 CRX (92,000 miles 60,000 by me), 90 CRX (168,000 miles 70,000 by me) and a 00 Hatch (49,000 miles all by me) and they were only in the shop for routine maintenance. (About 2 trips for the timing belt and water pump.)
CR's reliability ratings (like most ratings you come across) should be read and used with real-life experiences. I don't think anyone here is saying CR is the bottom line. We are saying that they are a trusted resource that lends credibility to our belief that Honda makes the most reliable, best built, cars and trucks on the road.
So have I. They're about all we've got right now. I think all this stuff started because people were using their ratings as proof. The fact is, their ratings don't prove anything. They are just a guide and, as you have said, should be read and used with real life experiences.
I and my family have owned many reliable Ford vehicles over the years. Our current Honda has had more problems than a lot of those Fords did so I tend to ignore most ratings anyway. I still look at them just in case, but I don't really let them influence me all that much. Besides, I don't keep vehicles long enough to reach 100,000 miles. Why waste my money on a car that I don't like the most? The CR-V fell into that category for me.
You see, I'm not bad-mouthing Honda like some do to Ford and the other domestic makes. I wouldn't benifit from doing so. Unless Ford wanted to throw a little dough my way?
I owned a Fiero, do I need to say more? 168,000 miles with a 72 month unlimited mileage warranty (THANK GOD!!) 3 exhaust manifolds, 4 alternators, 4 cruise/turn signal stalks, constant over heating...
Our Plymouth Neon has developed a nice problem. The glue used to hold the widshield and rear window in was faulty. It is melting and running down the sides of the car. Chrysler said it was because the car is old. (5 years old when it started and out of warranty) They had a TSB on it but, my car didn't have any problems until later.
Bottom line is my real-life experiences with Honda have been phenomenal. My family owns a business that relies on the big 3. My Grandfather was a Marine in the South Pacific. I was an American car guy thru and thru. Then one day, a girl at work was selling her Grandfathers 86 CRX for $2200 with 32,000 miles on it. Garaged in winters, it looked great. I needed a car so I took a chance (lucky me)
I have encountered a TON of flack for owning Japanese vehicles. (The freaks that work for the big 3 around here really look down on non-union vehicles.)My friends dad wouldn't let me park in his driveway!
When Honda lets me down, I'll consider something else.
Here's your answer. CR doesn't issue a rating unless they have more than 100 surveys for the vehicle. They indicate (with an asterisk) any vehicles that do not have three years worth of data.
CR's statisticians have determined that 100 vehicles is a safe population from which to base their ratings. Anything more than that decreases the likelihood of error. With each year, the number of surveys grows and the data becomes more reliable.
Is there still room for error? Yes. But we're talking about relatively tiny possibilities. CR might be off by a few percentage points. The difference between the CR-V and Escape is more like 60-80 percentage points.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5521
I think we agree on the "don't necessarily" part. It seems that in the absence of additional information, however, that the presumption of decent quality applies to high sales volume. I don't think you can outsell the competition unless you were giving customers what they want.
tidester, host
Right, but one vehicle might only have 100 while another vehicle has 1000. Don't you remember the USA Today article that I posted about 100 times? I believe it was the Grand Am that they used as an example of a vehicle that the didn't receive at least 100 for while a low volume MB received something like 300.
How does one qualify to receive a survey? Do you just have to be a subscriber? What's are the demographics of their average subscriber?
"With each year, the number of surveys grows and the data becomes more reliable."
How do you know this if they don't actually show you how many people responded for each vehicle?
"The difference between the CR-V and Escape is more like 60-80 percentage points."
So how is this measured in the end? Do they go by problems per 100 vehicles? Remember, I'm not trying to say that the Escape is more reliable, I just don't think it is that far off from the competition.
One more. How do they define reliability? For example, I rely on the vehicle to start every morning and get me from A to B without having to call a tow truck and/or leave it with a service dept./mechanic for a long period of time. That's honestly all I expect out of a vehicle. If a sensor goes bad and I have to take it somewhere for 30 minutes while it gets replaced, I wouldn't consider it to be a problem. CR might.
Please look at this link for some historical perspective:
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
I just hate it when misinformation spreads
We are not in the absence of additional information though. We have CR, Edmunds, J.D. Power, and Intellichoice. All of which will tell you that even though the Focus is selling well, it hasn't been relaible. We have other info.
I'll say it again. There are quite a few reasons some vehicles out sell others, quality is only one of those reasons. Fleet sales and employee/supplier discounts are two very real factors. I'd be VERY interested in finding out those numbers.
Think about it. There is not one municipality in the State of Michigan that could even consider anything but a vehicle from the big 3. Not one government owned vehicle in the whole state is built by anyone but Ford, GM, or DC. Police cars, DPW trucks, DNR trucks/cars...
I know the same of other states is true too.
We don't have street cars in Detroit anymore because GMC makes busses. Our street cars operate in Mexico City!!!!!
Of course. But the original post only mentioned sales figures which is why I said you had to make a better case - such as including additional information! :-)
tidester, host
I don't think I agree. I think CR is the only one to really use the term "unreliable". The others give it a poor quality rating. I don't think it is really unreliable, but I do think its quality is pretty poor. I know I wouldn't buy one myself.
Hopefully they get their act together with the U.S. version because it could be quite a car if they do.
Maybe I should give an example of what I think is an unreliable vehicle. Remember the mid-nineties Caravan/Voyager/Town & Countries? I think each one, that is still on the road, has had its transmission replaced/rebuilt at least once. Yes, I used to work with someone who was on her third transmission in their mid 90's Caravan, and is on her second in a late 90's model. Pretty much everyone else, that I know personally, who owns one has had a transmission go bad. My sister included.
That is unreliable. Having a few minor things replaced/adjusted during a scheduled maintenance visit does not make a vehicle unreliable in my book. It just means the manufacturer has to find a better parts supplier if you ask me.
Regardless of which models, Ford includes them for bragging rights, just as sales numbers for the Ford Explorer ("Best selling midsize SUV in America") include the 4-door Explorer, the 2-door Explorer Sport, and the pick-up Ford Explorer Sport Trac.
I have never seen sales of the F-Series as being 1 million yer year, regardless of redesign years.
Here is 2001: 911,597
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/49547/article.html
Here is 2000: 876,716
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/45758/article.html
Can you have one without the other? If a car is of poor quality can it be reliable? I think a Honda owner's definition of "reliable" (mine at least) is much different from many other owners.
baggs32 said...
"For example, I rely on the vehicle to start every morning and get me from A to B without having to call a tow truck and/or leave it with a service dept./mechanic for a long period of time. That's honestly all I expect out of a vehicle. If a sensor goes bad and I have to take it somewhere for 30 minutes while it gets replaced, I wouldn't consider it to be a problem."
I consider it a problem. It costs me time. Time I could be spending on something else. Not to mention the fact that the part that only took 30 minutes will cost you next time it breaks.
BTW how are you italicizing words?
All of your other questions can be answered by reading up on how CR collects and calculates their data. Pick up a copy. They spell it out in detail.
Enclose the text you want to italicise with these tags: <i>text you want to italicize</i>
tidester, host
http://www.cars.com/news/stories/120502_storya_ap.jhtml?aff=detnews
"Thirty-five people have reported fires in 1997-2002 Toyota Camry cars."
"Three owners of the 2002 Nissan Altima with a 2.5-liter engine said the engine caught fire without warning while they were driving."
"(The NHTSA) opened an investigation into 2001-2003 models of the Acura 3.2 TL and 3.2 CL because of 35 complaints about transmission problems that can cause the cars to quickly lose speed and come to a stop."
Isn't the NHTSA currently investigating the ML500's propensity to unintentionally back up into LA restaurants?
You got what you wanted out of it and I got what I wanted. Kind of like how you seem to believe that all of CR's data is fact while I do not. Who's right? Neither of us. This is why you can't believe everything you read.
"All it states is that some vehicles do not receive enough surveys."
If some vehicles did not receive enough surveys, we can conclude that the return for each vehicle varies. Agree? By how much is what we don't know, and CR is not showing us.
This is not an exact science. CR's data is there to guide you when shopping around for a new vehicle, refrigerator, lawn mower, kitchen faucet, TV, etc.. It is not fact, and it does not prove anything. Publishing reliability data, that was obtained the CR way, on a brand new model is pretty much the same thing as publishing initial quality data if you ask me. The CR-V most likely won out in that respect due to the Escape's rocky start. I won't argue too much with that.
We all have stories of cars going 100,000 or more. To make a statement that a Honda can do it but a Ford can't is pretty dumb. I have a Ford with over 86,000, several others I know have Fords ranging from 102,000 up to 150,000...
I see it as this. For every Escape sold, its one less ugly CRV on the road!
Each and every year it has been in production.
Bumped off the S2000, though.
Odie
I NEVER said the only reason Ford sells vehicles are incentives. I DID say incentives play a HUGE part in their sales. Along with fleet sales. (Please read.)
A Honda vehicle getting 100,000+ (trouble free) miles is expected, a Ford going 100,000 (trouble free) miles+ is a milestone.
The CR-V ugly? Well, everyone doesn't want to drive the a mini-Cherokee wannabe. (Escape) Could they look more like one another? Same bottom cladding, same rear look, same window shape. Whatever, it's just another Ford cookie cutter. i.e. Taurus, Sable, Contour, Mystique, Tempo, Topaz, Escort, Lynx, Pony, Grand Marquis, Crown Vic, Mousekateer, Explorer, Cobra, Mustang, Cougar, Thunderchicken. Tribute, Escape, piece of Play Doh.
Style is subjective.
CR is based on fact. They don't make their stats up.
"100,000 mile Ford a milestone" Typical Honda mentality.. I can count 4 "Milestones" in my family alone...
1. Escape/Trib
2. Liberty
3. VUE
4. RAV4
5. Suzuki XL7
6. Subaru Forester
7. CRV
8. Aztek
9. Santa Fe
Yep, styling is subjective.