Toyota is the only juggernaut. Or, from the perspective of the big 2.5, a dreadnaut. Honda is still a relatively small company. They rank somewhere around sixth or seventh in terms of their sales. And there's a big jump between slots four and five on that list.
I agree that the notion of Japanese reliability is a misnomer. It just happens to be that the two most consistently reliable brands are Japanese.
As for stats... most criticisms are of factors that would go both ways. There is no way to know that buyers of certain makes report only the big or little issues. The studies may be biased toward negative results, but they have the same bias for all brands, not just one or another.
If I may steal Driftracer's words for a second... Stats are a way of organizing and summarizing all those real answers from real people.
"Stats are a way of organizing and summarizing all those real answers from real people."
True as far as it goes, and I agree that most of the biases tend to be equally applied. However there can be inaccuracies introduced by the way the questions are asked. For example CR asks owners to report what the owner considers to be "major" problems with their car, washer etc. Only a very limited definition of "major" is offered. I guess they want only what really bothers owners.
Problem is, some owners arereally bothered by the fact that the engine repeatedly stalls at high-speeds, but others are really bothered by the exhaust note. The two are handled with equal weight by the CR ratings in the engine category. From data like that you get results you need to interpret with a grain of salt. To me it's places like these boards that flesh-out the data CR offers.
Perhaps, but not factually, or accurately, so the info is worthless.
True, it is a way to organize the information you have on hand, but if there's no way to certify that info, it's as meaningless as surveying people who just left the movie theatre - you'll get people who enjoyed the movie, people who hated it, people who felt ripped off, but one thing you won't have is accurate, professional evaluation.
Your second paragraph is spot-on and sums this whole concept up nicely.
In any event, your argument does not explain why the same rating services rank cars such as Toyota, Honda and Buick make high, and gives the other Japanese makes middle of the road ratings.
When I say that many of the popular published rankings have Japanese makes other than Toyota or Honda in the middle, someone argues I am wrong as all that matters are personal observations.
In response, I report my personal observations, then someone argues I am wrong because of what is in the publications.
Basically what we have are people not wanting anyone with an opinion different from their own. So be it. Certainly not the brightest way to do things, but typical.
I researched the heck out of the Miata both before and after buying it. For its class, it does fairly well with reliability. It probably is considered somewhat less reliable than the S2000 and MR2 but more reliable than the Boxter and Benz SLK: Which just about fits the definition of being in the middle, I should think.
The primary lure for the Miata is fun per dollar spent and the car's lightweight tossable fun quotient.
The basic platform and engine design has not changed much in 10 years, making the glitches I have experienced in my fairly new Miata quite frustrating. I know that I am not supposed to report my Miata problems anywhere Newcar might be reading, so I will be careful to share them only with the no mind reviewers from JD Power and CR in the future.
logic1: I'd say Infiniti is right up there with Honda and Toyota in those surveys. I recall that at the 5 years mark of the JDP Durability Study, Subaru outscored Honda, too. It's not always a 1-2 punch like that.
Mitsu scores like Chrysler (surprise?). Mazda is good early on, then drops to about average, with the Miata doing better than other Mazdas.
Suzuki and Isuzu don't tend to do so well, except Isuzu's long-term durability (Trooper tied with 4Runner for 1st in class).
weren't their own mis-steps the source of the loss of that independence?
Not necessarily. Small players are being squeezed out by economies of scale. Partnerships became a necessity to survive. Subaru had about 5 years of consecutive growth before GM bought a 20% stake (now 22%).
varmint: surprisingly, globally Honda was ranked only 10th last time I looked (they may have moved up 1 or 2 spots since then), so you're right about them not being a juggernaut like Toyota is.
Through the late '90s Infiniti was the forgotten stepchild to Lexus and Acura though.
It certainly appears now that Acura is starting to lose its way and Infiniti is finding it.
I agree global economics have played into the manufacturer's fate. Two of the most successful and profitable carmakers, BMW and Porsche, also happen to be two of the smallest.
GM would not have been able to buy into Subaru had its parent felt the brand could have made it on its own.
Dunno, the I30/35 was way, way up there in the CR ratings, and the QX4 was on top of the small SUV class when it was around.
Porsche is the most profitable company, but they have a tiny niche, and are very high-end. Not to mention even Porsche had to sell out, and market VW-based SUVs. Without boxer engines. Makes me cringe.
Toyota and Honda have always been considered top two in terms of long term reliability (if not short term surveys). Subaru and Nissan apparently are the next two, followed by the rest. Here are couple of reliability index chart over an extended period of time. Reliability Index Rating (1988-2000) Best & Worst Reliability Index (2000)
"Problem is, some owners are really bothered by the fact that the engine repeatedly stalls at high-speeds, but others are really bothered by the exhaust note. The two are handled with equal weight by the CR ratings in the engine category." - Alfox
Oh yeah, absolutely. But in the context of this discussion (brand vs brand), that potential for error is the same for any brand. Unless someone can prove that domestic or European buyers report more exhaust noise problems than Japanese car buyers.
As others have described in their own words, the thing to look for consistency. When JD Powers, CR, SV, industry opinion, as well as personal anecdotes all match up... you have good information. As Juice mentioned, some car makers will shine on one report for any given year. Then the next year, or the next survey, the same brand is ranked at the bottom. The last rankings I saw for Subaru had them in the bottom quarter of the list. Hyundai just scored very well on a short term study, then tanked on a long term study about a month later. When a company like Toyota or Honda scores near the top on most every survey year after year, you have good information.
"Small players are being squeezed out by economies of scale. Partnerships became a necessity to survive." - Juice
Size matters? Well, that remains to be seen. I agree that competing with the large companies presents disadvantages for the smaller ones, but there are some advantages to be being smaller. The companies that have been doing best of the past decade are ones like Honda and BMW. Meanwhile DCX and Ford are struggling. So there's obviously more to it than size.
Juice - Actually the 6th place ranking is probably two years old. But I think that number may only reflect US sales. On the world scene, which is probably a more accurate indicator, Honda would rank much lower.
"Through the late '90s Infiniti was the forgotten stepchild to Lexus and Acura though.
It certainly appears now that Acura is starting to lose its way and Infiniti is finding it." - Logic
I think you're right about Infiniti being at the bottom, but Acura wasn't much better in the 90's. 90-94 were good years with the Legend and Integra, but after the Legend left, the brand relied heavily on the Integra. That was the only car that kept Acura ahead of Infiniti.
It wasn't until 2000 that the TL caught on. Then the arrival of the MDX brought Acura back into the limelight. Since then, things have been quite rosy. The TSX and new TL are huge. The new RL can't be anything other than an improvement.
As popular as the G35 cars in the press, Acura's TL outsells the G35 Sedan by a wide margin. The TSX matches sales of the G35 Coupe. The MDX outsells the FX35 and 45 by a wide margin. There's no doubt that Infiniti is having a revival, but it's not any more impressive than what Acura is doing.
Infiniti went with RWD and that gets attention from the press, but I think Acura is more established and they're improving too. SH-AWD might kill off whatever momentum Infiniti had, also.
Well, I think Infiniti's success is as much a result of their engines and styling as their RWD platforms. So I don't think Acura is going to curtail their growth. What is more likely is that Infiniti, Acura, and now Cadillac are going to take a chunk out of BMW's bread and butter. I think Audi is already feeling the squeeze.
Speaking of BMW’s sales, the following are 2004 sales numbers thru July (YTD). Sales numbers include all body style as they are available (coupe/sedan/wagon/convertible, RWD and AWD). 325 : 42,891 330 : 15,823 M3 : 5,063 3-series: 63,777
Small players are being squeezed out by economies of scale. Partnerships became a necessity to survive.
While there are disadvantages to being small, there are several advantages as well. Sometimes it is simply better to have a more compacted but successful lineup than a scattered diversity. Every automaker will reach a plateau, the large ones would get there faster.
That said, the smaller automakers have to be smarter to sustain growth and compete with the big guns. They have to figure out ways to refresh their lineup quickly without having to open up the vault at the bank. Over last 3-4 years, Honda has been preparing for just that with its flexible production line.
Hard to believe that part of the reason for Honda’s existence may be due to Toyota! (Mr. Soichiro was nearly bankrupt trying to start his motorcycle business when he got a contract from Toyota to supply suspension components).
Speaking of partnerships it is possible without being gobbled up by a larger company. More partnerships along the lines of GM-Honda “Gasoline V6 for Diesel I-4” would work.
I was thinking of the lower end of the market getting squeezed by Infiniti and Acura. I wonder who is getting the high-end sales that BMW is missing. My guess is Lexus. My last view of MB sales didn't look too favorable.
I think I was saying that the engine deal was mutually beneficial. But now Honda has diesels but I bet GM wants more of those Honda V6s.
Vue just suffered an embarassing recall, though, and what engine will it get now? Equinox gets an old tech 3.4l, do they have enough capacity for the 3500 engine in the Malibu? That's also going in all the new minivans now.
It would have made more sense, the 'nox is bigger and more upscale in look/feel.
I wonder if Honda didn't allow that, the 'nox already looks a bit like an MDX from some angles. Not that it would match the Acura, but if it looked like it and had the same engine for about half the price....
Well, that Honda 3.5L is already used in the MDX, Pilot, Ody, upcoming RL, upcoming SUT (likely), and the VUE. Honda has a hard time keeping up with demand for most of these vehicles. They may not be able to handle additional production for GM's cars.
As for the 'Nox, I expect that they will install the Malibu block sooner or later. The 3.4L is probably just so they could get the car to the market without too great a cost.
Toyota and Honda have always been considered top two in terms of long term reliability (if not short term surveys). Subaru and Nissan apparently are the next two, followed by the rest. Here are couple of reliability index chart over an extended period of time.
Who comes up with this crap? Of the new vehicles I have owned that were made in Japan only one was a reliable vehicle. It was a 1970 Datsun PU. I have bought new vehicles starting in 1964 a Toyota Land Cruiser, 1970 Datsun PU, 1973 Subaru, 1976 Datsun PU, 1978 Honda Accord, 1983 Toyota, 1988 Subaru, 1992 & 1994 Toyota PU's. With the one exception they were all poorly built vehicles. I bought new Chevy PU trucks in 1988, 1990, 1993 & a 1999 Suburban. None of them were the trouble the Japanese vehicles were. I cannot believe I have that much worse luck with vehicles. I don't baby my vehicles. I drive them hard. The 1970 Datsun I paid $2200 for new and sold it 4 years later for $2000. The 1964 Land Cruiser had a lousy engine but is worth more than the $2400 I paid new for it. The rest were scrap metal in a short time.
How about EVERYONE ELSE in the nation besides you?
And you're still bringing up the 1964 Land Cruiser? Never mind that most domestics in 1964 had engines where you were lucky if they made it to 60k without a rebuild.
You're harping over a 40 year old vehicle? Please...
I had just as bad a luck with the 1994 Toyota PU. the clutch went out at 12k miles and not covered by warranty $900 was my cost at the Toyota dealer. Plus towing. Timing belt at 40k and the engine died at 107k. They have not improved in my book. I am just a voice of reason. I hear all this crap about poorly built American vehicles and would like to set the record straight. Actually I would love to have that small window Land Cruiser back, with a small block Chevy engine they are a great off roader.
OK, so if the pressure plate didn't fail, which would have been covered by warranty, something "else" caused the failure, which wouldn't be covered by warranty by ANY manufacturer that sells vehicles in the US, save for a few with deep pockets, like MB, Porsche, and BMW - then, it's not about what's right or covered, it's about making rich, whiny guys happy.
"I hear all this crap about poorly built American vehicles and would like to set the record straight"
I understand your point, and understand you've had bad luck with a few vehicles, but you need to understand that I do 20 GM lemon law cases per week, plus 4-5 Fords, a couple of Chryslers, and maybe an import or two, but those are Hyundai and Kia, not Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, etc.
In the 5200 cases that I've dealt with in just under 4 years, over 4300 of them were domestics - 12 were Hondas, 34 were Toyotas, and of course, there were nearly 800 Hyundais and Kias. But then again, you never heard me singing praises for those two.
My cross-section of cases from the 4 very populated states I work in seem to directly conflict with your experiences, and directly support everyone else's experiences...
It also could be a faulty clutch plate - those things happen too. They just don't happen very often, and to cross a manufacturer like Toyota off your dance card because of two bad experiences is short-sighted. You have to look at the bigger picture, IMO.
It does look that way. Premature clutch failures are almost always driver-induced. I don't know what specifically a driver could do to cause a T-belt to fail early, but I'd guess probably the same things that caused early engine failure would work.
Since you all are so interested I should get Paul Harvey to tell you "The Rest of the Story". I bought the 1994 Toyota for my son that was 18 at the time. I bought it under pressure from my 3rd wife who I had bought a 1992 Toyota PU for. My Main complaint on her 1992 Toyota PU 4 banger was horrible mileage 14/19 mpg. No better than my 1990 Chevy 3/4 ton PU. Now my son was not the easiest on vehicles. But I felt a clutch at 12k was ridiculous. I was in Alaska at the time and the truck was in San Diego. So I was a victim of the Toyota dealer. The worst was the engine dying at 107k in Lake Tahoe. I ended up getting one of those so-called low mileage engines from Japan. At the installed price of $2800. Again I was not there so I got taken. Oh, I got rid of the PU and the 3rd wife and have lots more money now. Now my question for Driftracer; Of those lemons you had to squeeze what percentage were Chevy fullsize 3/4 ton PU trucks or Suburbans? As that is my only experience with Chevy vehicles.
"I bought the 1994 Toyota for my son that was 18 at the time"
I rest my case on that one.
The primary portion of my GM lemon law cases are divided pretty much evenly between 1500 and 2500 series trucks/Suvs and cars like the Alero and Grand Am.
Have you noticed any increase in the Chevy PU problems since the new models started arriving in 1999. My Suburban is the old style. Just wondering if the newer ones are more prone to trouble. Like I have said all four I have owned since 1988 are virtually trouble free. No teenage drivers either.
In the FWIW department, gagrice, my son has managed to kill 3 cars in 2 years, and he's making a good dent in my Infiniti at the moment. I wouldn't give a clutch a bad rap with him at the wheel. In fact, he dropped a driveline out of a Silverado with a 4 speed so what chance would a clutch have? Anyway, you may be right, I'm just saying......
I guess I should count my blessings. Speaking of Honda. If they ever bring that Accord diesel to the US, I would be tempted to forgive them for the 1978 Accord. It sounds promising with the mandated ULSD in 2006.
I noticed that one of gagrice's Japanese cars was a 1978 Honda Accord. Hondas of the 1970s had their problems, but one must remember the competition at that time - the Chevy Vega and Chevette, the Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin, Mopar Omni/Horizon twins and the VW Rabbit. Need I say more...
Out of these gems, the Chevy Chevette was actually pretty tough, as I recall, but it definitely lacked refinement and any of the "fun-to-drive" feeling that the VW Rabbit provided (between its frequent visits to the repair shop, of course).
I had a 1977 Honda Civic with the "Hondamatic" transmission. The engine had to be rebuilt at about 120,000 miles. The car finally gave up the ghost at about 150,000 miles. Rust was also taking its toll.
By comparison, I learned to drive on my father's 1973 AMC Gremlin. That car was in the shop regularly...it seemed as though every component - from the engine to the interior trim - was designed to break within 10,000 miles. It died at 96,000 miles when I took it for a drive in subzero weather. I couldn't get it started and mechanic pronounced it "not worth fixing." (I had formed that opinion about 50,000 miles before.)
My father, who had an almost irrational attachment to the car, was very disappointed. But my mother, who absolutelty HATED it, pulled me aside and said, "Thank goodness, I never thought we'd get rid of that dog." Later, the mechanic called my mother and told her that he could get the car running with an engine swap, but she "accidentally" forgot to relay this information to my father.
driftracer, I noticed you said that most domestics in the 1960s needed an engine rebuild at 60,000 miles. My family must have been lucky, as our 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 was still running well at 110,000 miles when my parents traded it for another Oldsmobile, and my grandmother's 1966 Dodge Dart 270 with the slant six and Torqueflite was still going strong at well over 100,000 miles when she traded it.
I recall the big V-8s and straight sixes (our Gremlin aside) from the 1960s and 1970s as being pretty tough and reliable. The domestics hit trouble when they tried to compete directly with the four-cylinder imports.
Back in the sixties, 100,000 miles without an engine overhaul was really pushing it. The old slant sixes and a couple of others were exceptions. Valve jobs were common around 5-60,000 miles too. Automatic transmissions, depending on the car would usually need an overhaul around the same time.
I noticed that one of gagrice's Japanese cars was a 1978 Honda Accord. Hondas of the 1970s had their problems, but one must remember the competition at that time - the Chevy Vega and Chevette, the Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin, Mopar Omni/Horizon twins and the VW Rabbit.
As a matter of fact my first choice of a vehicle in 1978 was the diesel Rabbit. They had a waiting list 6 months long, and I needed a car that got good mileage. The Honda had serious over heating problems that resulted in premature death of the engine (60k miles). You can still get good money for a diesel Rabbit today. They are a solid 45/50 MPG car. Nothing but VW TDI & the hybrids can make that claim in the USA. My 1974 Dodge Van with a 318 V8 far outlasted the Honda Accord. I had it overhauled at 112k miles and drove it till 1986 when it rusted away.
Comments
I agree that the notion of Japanese reliability is a misnomer. It just happens to be that the two most consistently reliable brands are Japanese.
As for stats... most criticisms are of factors that would go both ways. There is no way to know that buyers of certain makes report only the big or little issues. The studies may be biased toward negative results, but they have the same bias for all brands, not just one or another.
If I may steal Driftracer's words for a second... Stats are a way of organizing and summarizing all those real answers from real people.
True as far as it goes, and I agree that most of the biases tend to be equally applied. However there can be inaccuracies introduced by the way the questions are asked. For example CR asks owners to report what the owner considers to be "major" problems with their car, washer etc. Only a very limited definition of "major" is offered. I guess they want only what really bothers owners.
Problem is, some owners arereally bothered by the fact that the engine repeatedly stalls at high-speeds, but others are really bothered by the exhaust note. The two are handled with equal weight by the CR ratings in the engine category. From data like that you get results you need to interpret with a grain of salt. To me it's places like these boards that flesh-out the data CR offers.
True, it is a way to organize the information you have on hand, but if there's no way to certify that info, it's as meaningless as surveying people who just left the movie theatre - you'll get people who enjoyed the movie, people who hated it, people who felt ripped off, but one thing you won't have is accurate, professional evaluation.
Your second paragraph is spot-on and sums this whole concept up nicely.
I am a Mazda owner and do not have much to say about its reliability - and this is a Miata with the Mazda only 1.8.
I thought the Miata was rated highly by certain publications?
In response, I report my personal observations, then someone argues I am wrong because of what is in the publications.
Basically what we have are people not wanting anyone with an opinion different from their own. So be it. Certainly not the brightest way to do things, but typical.
I researched the heck out of the Miata both before and after buying it. For its class, it does fairly well with reliability. It probably is considered somewhat less reliable than the S2000 and MR2 but more reliable than the Boxter and Benz SLK: Which just about fits the definition of being in the middle, I should think.
The primary lure for the Miata is fun per dollar spent and the car's lightweight tossable fun quotient.
The basic platform and engine design has not changed much in 10 years, making the glitches I have experienced in my fairly new Miata quite frustrating. I know that I am not supposed to report my Miata problems anywhere Newcar might be reading, so I will be careful to share them only with the no mind reviewers from JD Power and CR in the future.
Mitsu scores like Chrysler (surprise?). Mazda is good early on, then drops to about average, with the Miata doing better than other Mazdas.
Suzuki and Isuzu don't tend to do so well, except Isuzu's long-term durability (Trooper tied with 4Runner for 1st in class).
weren't their own mis-steps the source of the loss of that independence?
Not necessarily. Small players are being squeezed out by economies of scale. Partnerships became a necessity to survive. Subaru had about 5 years of consecutive growth before GM bought a 20% stake (now 22%).
varmint: surprisingly, globally Honda was ranked only 10th last time I looked (they may have moved up 1 or 2 spots since then), so you're right about them not being a juggernaut like Toyota is.
-juice
It certainly appears now that Acura is starting to lose its way and Infiniti is finding it.
I agree global economics have played into the manufacturer's fate. Two of the most successful and profitable carmakers, BMW and Porsche, also happen to be two of the smallest.
GM would not have been able to buy into Subaru had its parent felt the brand could have made it on its own.
Porsche is the most profitable company, but they have a tiny niche, and are very high-end. Not to mention even Porsche had to sell out, and market VW-based SUVs. Without boxer engines. Makes me cringe.
BMW is quite the exception, though.
-juice
Reliability Index Rating (1988-2000)
Best & Worst Reliability Index (2000)
Oh yeah, absolutely. But in the context of this discussion (brand vs brand), that potential for error is the same for any brand. Unless someone can prove that domestic or European buyers report more exhaust noise problems than Japanese car buyers.
As others have described in their own words, the thing to look for consistency. When JD Powers, CR, SV, industry opinion, as well as personal anecdotes all match up... you have good information. As Juice mentioned, some car makers will shine on one report for any given year. Then the next year, or the next survey, the same brand is ranked at the bottom. The last rankings I saw for Subaru had them in the bottom quarter of the list. Hyundai just scored very well on a short term study, then tanked on a long term study about a month later. When a company like Toyota or Honda scores near the top on most every survey year after year, you have good information.
"Small players are being squeezed out by economies of scale. Partnerships became a necessity to survive." - Juice
Size matters? Well, that remains to be seen. I agree that competing with the large companies presents disadvantages for the smaller ones, but there are some advantages to be being smaller. The companies that have been doing best of the past decade are ones like Honda and BMW. Meanwhile DCX and Ford are struggling. So there's obviously more to it than size.
Juice - Actually the 6th place ranking is probably two years old. But I think that number may only reflect US sales. On the world scene, which is probably a more accurate indicator, Honda would rank much lower.
"Through the late '90s Infiniti was the forgotten stepchild to Lexus and Acura though.
It certainly appears now that Acura is starting to lose its way and Infiniti is finding it." - Logic
I think you're right about Infiniti being at the bottom, but Acura wasn't much better in the 90's. 90-94 were good years with the Legend and Integra, but after the Legend left, the brand relied heavily on the Integra. That was the only car that kept Acura ahead of Infiniti.
It wasn't until 2000 that the TL caught on. Then the arrival of the MDX brought Acura back into the limelight. Since then, things have been quite rosy. The TSX and new TL are huge. The new RL can't be anything other than an improvement.
As popular as the G35 cars in the press, Acura's TL outsells the G35 Sedan by a wide margin. The TSX matches sales of the G35 Coupe. The MDX outsells the FX35 and 45 by a wide margin. There's no doubt that Infiniti is having a revival, but it's not any more impressive than what Acura is doing.
Any newer data? Some makes have changed completely since then.
-juice
Infiniti went with RWD and that gets attention from the press, but I think Acura is more established and they're improving too. SH-AWD might kill off whatever momentum Infiniti had, also.
-juice
Did you know that 5 and 7 series sales were both down more than 50% last month? They are NEW models and should be growing sales.
-juice
325 : 42,891
330 : 15,823
M3 : 5,063
3-series: 63,777
525 : 9,694
530 : 11,072
540/545 : 4,902
M5 : 54
5-series: 25,743
745 : 9,363
760 : 289
7-series: 9,652
More people are happy with 2.5/I-6 in the 3-series. The same engine is probably “not enough” for the heavier 5-series so 3.0/I-6 rules.
While there are disadvantages to being small, there are several advantages as well. Sometimes it is simply better to have a more compacted but successful lineup than a scattered diversity. Every automaker will reach a plateau, the large ones would get there faster.
That said, the smaller automakers have to be smarter to sustain growth and compete with the big guns. They have to figure out ways to refresh their lineup quickly without having to open up the vault at the bank. Over last 3-4 years, Honda has been preparing for just that with its flexible production line.
Hard to believe that part of the reason for Honda’s existence may be due to Toyota! (Mr. Soichiro was nearly bankrupt trying to start his motorcycle business when he got a contract from Toyota to supply suspension components).
Speaking of partnerships it is possible without being gobbled up by a larger company. More partnerships along the lines of GM-Honda “Gasoline V6 for Diesel I-4” would work.
http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2040804.002/2040804.002.Mini1M.- jpg
I was thinking of the lower end of the market getting squeezed by Infiniti and Acura. I wonder who is getting the high-end sales that BMW is missing. My guess is Lexus. My last view of MB sales didn't look too favorable.
I think I was saying that the engine deal was mutually beneficial. But now Honda has diesels but I bet GM wants more of those Honda V6s.
Vue just suffered an embarassing recall, though, and what engine will it get now? Equinox gets an old tech 3.4l, do they have enough capacity for the 3500 engine in the Malibu? That's also going in all the new minivans now.
-juice
I wonder if Honda didn't allow that, the 'nox already looks a bit like an MDX from some angles. Not that it would match the Acura, but if it looked like it and had the same engine for about half the price....
-juice
As for the 'Nox, I expect that they will install the Malibu block sooner or later. The 3.4L is probably just so they could get the car to the market without too great a cost.
-juice
Who comes up with this crap? Of the new vehicles I have owned that were made in Japan only one was a reliable vehicle. It was a 1970 Datsun PU. I have bought new vehicles starting in 1964 a Toyota Land Cruiser, 1970 Datsun PU, 1973 Subaru, 1976 Datsun PU, 1978 Honda Accord, 1983 Toyota, 1988 Subaru, 1992 & 1994 Toyota PU's. With the one exception they were all poorly built vehicles. I bought new Chevy PU trucks in 1988, 1990, 1993 & a 1999 Suburban. None of them were the trouble the Japanese vehicles were. I cannot believe I have that much worse luck with vehicles. I don't baby my vehicles. I drive them hard. The 1970 Datsun I paid $2200 for new and sold it 4 years later for $2000. The 1964 Land Cruiser had a lousy engine but is worth more than the $2400 I paid new for it. The rest were scrap metal in a short time.
And you're still bringing up the 1964 Land Cruiser? Never mind that most domestics in 1964 had engines where you were lucky if they made it to 60k without a rebuild.
You're harping over a 40 year old vehicle? Please...
"I hear all this crap about poorly built American vehicles and would like to set the record straight"
I understand your point, and understand you've had bad luck with a few vehicles, but you need to understand that I do 20 GM lemon law cases per week, plus 4-5 Fords, a couple of Chryslers, and maybe an import or two, but those are Hyundai and Kia, not Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, etc.
In the 5200 cases that I've dealt with in just under 4 years, over 4300 of them were domestics - 12 were Hondas, 34 were Toyotas, and of course, there were nearly 800 Hyundais and Kias. But then again, you never heard me singing praises for those two.
My cross-section of cases from the 4 very populated states I work in seem to directly conflict with your experiences, and directly support everyone else's experiences...
One has to wonder what abuse that truck may have endured. A clutch at 12,000 miles?
I remember as a 16 year old, I tore the clutch out of my dad's VW in a much shorter time!
My dad had no idea how I drove his cars and that's a good thing. He thought a VW clutch should last longer than a year and he was right.
He also wondered why the muffler on his Buick Skylark didn't last very long.
I didn't lie to him about that one..." I was driving along and all of a sudden, I heard a loud explosion"
That part was true. I didn't mention that I had turned off the ignition a block before when I spotted two buddies at a bus stop!
When I got alongside of them, the ignition was switched back on and suddenly the Buick just happened to need a muffler!
My only point was/is, those kind of problems are VERY unusual for a Toyota truck and I was wondering outloud if there may have been a reason.
But remember, the timing belt broke at 40,000 and the engine was shot at a little over 100K ??
And, if you read an earlier post, he has listed a bunch of other Japanese cars that, for most people, were sturdy, tough cars.
Just seems like there's a missing element to this story but, perhaps not.
Now my question for Driftracer;
Of those lemons you had to squeeze what percentage were Chevy fullsize 3/4 ton PU trucks or Suburbans? As that is my only experience with Chevy vehicles.
I rest my case on that one.
The primary portion of my GM lemon law cases are divided pretty much evenly between 1500 and 2500 series trucks/Suvs and cars like the Alero and Grand Am.
Out of these gems, the Chevy Chevette was actually pretty tough, as I recall, but it definitely lacked refinement and any of the "fun-to-drive" feeling that the VW Rabbit provided (between its frequent visits to the repair shop, of course).
I had a 1977 Honda Civic with the "Hondamatic" transmission. The engine had to be rebuilt at about 120,000 miles. The car finally gave up the ghost at about 150,000 miles. Rust was also taking its toll.
By comparison, I learned to drive on my father's 1973 AMC Gremlin. That car was in the shop regularly...it seemed as though every component - from the engine to the interior trim - was designed to break within 10,000 miles. It died at 96,000 miles when I took it for a drive in subzero weather. I couldn't get it started and mechanic pronounced it "not worth fixing." (I had formed that opinion about 50,000 miles before.)
My father, who had an almost irrational attachment to the car, was very disappointed. But my mother, who absolutelty HATED it, pulled me aside and said, "Thank goodness, I never thought we'd get rid of that dog." Later, the mechanic called my mother and told her that he could get the car running with an engine swap, but she "accidentally" forgot to relay this information to my father.
driftracer, I noticed you said that most domestics in the 1960s needed an engine rebuild at 60,000 miles. My family must have been lucky, as our 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 was still running well at 110,000 miles when my parents traded it for another Oldsmobile, and my grandmother's 1966 Dodge Dart 270 with the slant six and Torqueflite was still going strong at well over 100,000 miles when she traded it.
I recall the big V-8s and straight sixes (our Gremlin aside) from the 1960s and 1970s as being pretty tough and reliable. The domestics hit trouble when they tried to compete directly with the four-cylinder imports.
As a matter of fact my first choice of a vehicle in 1978 was the diesel Rabbit. They had a waiting list 6 months long, and I needed a car that got good mileage. The Honda had serious over heating problems that resulted in premature death of the engine (60k miles). You can still get good money for a diesel Rabbit today. They are a solid 45/50 MPG car. Nothing but VW TDI & the hybrids can make that claim in the USA. My 1974 Dodge Van with a 318 V8 far outlasted the Honda Accord. I had it overhauled at 112k miles and drove it till 1986 when it rusted away.