I think certainly that there are buy back vehicles that can be very good quality vehicles and certainly manufacturing processes have virtually ensured that few if any real lemons exist. But occasionally there are enough of the same problems that occur on a vehicle that require use of the lemon law to protect consumers and their purchase price. Without it, there is no incentive for an auto manufacturer to increase quality beyond a certain level (since more problems essentially mean more required service). Many of the problems discussed here are not serious issues, but I can tell you that if it were a transmission or braking or air-bag problem, I would not touch that vehicle without a written guarantee extending the coverage on that particular area of the vehicle. Accidents that are caused by things like this or that these problems end up making a situation worse are certainly concern for the consumer more than the lemon law itself.
isell....well, not to bring up another of my "old stories", but the problems I went through with my Mother's '06 Cadillac STS makes me believe that there are lemons.
I think it's a mixture of things that make cars lemons. In the Cadillac's case, I think it was "half-baked" design/engineering and just plain sloppiness in its build. There were many electrical glitches, but the icing on the cake was when the rear window imploded. Could it be fixed? Of course. But, there comes a point when it's clear that a mixture of dealership service ineptitude, poor design and poor assembly is enough for the consumer to not put up with the problems. Especially when, as you say, the customer's faith is shattered in the product.
Personally, I've never heard of such failures in any Honda products, which is good for you. But, even the mighty Toyota has had their fair share of glitches, recently. Surprisingly, I've not heard of such things with Subarus, either. That might account for their rabid fan base.
Personally, I've never heard of such failures in any Honda products
Pick up todays USA Today...it seems that Honda has no idea how to make an accurate odometer..They also didn't think it was too important until the lawsuits started flying...I won't even go into the tranny failure issues. The point is all mfg occasionally build good cars that go bad. Some mfg handle it pretty well and some don't, as you recently found out.
Do you drive to work? Do you drive to the store to get groceries? If so try doing those without your car for a while and tell me its not an investment.
First of all, I'm sure you guys won't believe me so you might want to call your local Honda dealer and ask them yourself. Just don't call one of the stores that short cutted YOUR 3 mile PDI!
I asked three techs and our Service Manager...10 miles!
They usually come off the trucks with 3-5 miles. We drive them a half mile to fill the gas tanks and the techs road test them as they check various functions.
No, I don't think several problems in a row would be any indicator of problems in the future.
This is more sales man talk? You are not really that naive, are you? Have you ever brought in a vehicle and it had the same problem when you got it back even after you had gifted someone a few hundred for the repair? Have you ever had reassembly that was not properly done? In some cases, dealerships fix the symptom and not the cause and the owner is stuck with a reoccuring problem.
In my view, any significant repair could always remain troublesome because the workmanship at many shops and dealership is just so poor! I am not saying that all the fixes are not working for me but I am saying that many repairs do not return the vehicle even close to its original operating condition.
Better yet, those who've purchased a new honda with less than 10 miles on the odometer should show page 4 of the Honda Service History Booklet to their dealer and demand to know how they accomplished all that's there for the road test in less than 10 miles.
Ironically, this is surely one time a salesperson here is looking out for our best interests and we're actually seeing that others were offering questionable services.
...it seems that Honda has no idea how to make an accurate odometer..They also didn't think it was too important until the lawsuits started flying...
Keep in mind that the odometers are all within the standard set by the Feds. In the case of this class action suit, IMHO Honda decided to settle instead of fighting.
The vast majority of repairs done at a dealer or quality shop will turn out fine. You always want to dwell on the negatives
I try to focus on the full spectrum of possibilities! Do you only look at the rosie side of things? You have never seen or heard of a vehicle that deserved the lemon designation? NEVER? I am just saying that some vehicles have problems that dealers cannot fix for what ever reason... it could even be because the owner is abusing the vehicle.
The issue is that problems CAN come up more than once sometime because of poor design and sometimes because of poor repair/judgement: let's say you bring in the vehicle for uneven tire wear and the dealership replaces the tires and even aligns the beast; well that may not be the actual problem and in a few miles you are back to the same problem but by then you are out of the warranty period...
I prefer to think that I am a realist and even though you and I do not agree on a few points I have agreed with you on some points. I see less of that "agree to disagree" on a few points from you! Example: Do you think it is "fair" to charge $90 in labour to empty & refill a rear end on a Pilot? It actually takes as much work than an oil change?
An investment is defined as an outlay of money for income or profit. Nothing in the definition states that the item that the investment is in appreciates or the profit is money. Your understanding of investment is to narrow.
Furthermore, I could just as easily get replacements for the car that would be considerably cheaper (i.e. taking public transportation, cycling, etc)
Public transportation and cycling may not be cheaper considering other costs involved. Sure I can take public transportation to work, but it would take me 3 times as long to get there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I sure feel sorry for the new buyer who picks that lemon
You make a good point, and I agree that the disposition of the 2006 "lemon" is an issue. Still, the issue exists whether billonthelake buys an available 2007 or a left-over 2006 obtained by exchange. The exchange doesn't have to involve the lemon.
Cars that exhibit problems, no matter how unrelated, will generally exhibit more and more problems as time goes on. Almost exponentially increasing. Therefore I could correctly predict that my wife's two year old Civic that was built bulletproof in Japan will need 0 repairs in 300K miles, because it needed 0 visits back to the dealer for warranty issues; as it had none. My American built Accord needed about 10 visits to the dealer during its warranty (granted it could have been 5 or so visits if the dealer didn't suck at having parts readily in stock, or breaking things while fixing something else). I can guarantee you that if I hadn't sold that car at 64K miles, it would have had more than 5 more problems from 64 to 164K miles. Based on experience I know that cars that are trouble free tend to stay that way. Cars that have problems tend to get worse. Cars that have tons of problems tend to get tremendously worse. It is completely correlated.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yeah, it does make our mouths pucker but I would just call this strange bad luck.
The chances of something else breaking would be the same as any other car..
You are kidding right? There are thousands of cars on the road that have virtually bulletproof reliability and nothing ever goes wrong. There are thousands of cars out there that seem to be in the shop every 3 months quite consistently. From my direct experience, it is a fallacy to think "we'll, I've repaired just about everything on this car, so what else could go wrong?"
People that think that way are fooling themselves. There is a lot that could go wrong, many many times.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Based on experience I know that cars that are trouble free tend to stay that way. Cars that have problems tend to get worse.
If you're referring to the cars you have owned then I would have reservations about the sample size upon which those inferences are drawn.
On the one hand, if component failures were truly random then your experiences could be regarded as statistical flukes. On the other hand, a confluence of factors at the assembly line on a particular day could produce a correlative effect on component reliability in a subset of vehicles sold. In that case you have been extraordinarily lucky or unlucky in your purchases.
However, I don't believe enough supporting data has been provided here to draw statistically sound conclusions either way.
I don't believe there is such a thing as random component failures. I believe certain automakers knew they were designing low reliability poor dependability vehicles during the design and engineering phase of the production. Then of course poor build quality could only make it worse.
Certain manufacturers were smart to only use the highest quality lowest failure rate components, and therefore produced highly reliable cars.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Just because you had no visits for warranty work in two years doesn't mean that you will get 300K miles with zero repairs. Doesn't even mean you will get 300K miles at all.
Just because you go back a few times to get things fixed doesn't mean that once those bugs are fixed you won't get lots of worry free miles out of your car.
I can guarantee you that if I hadn't sold that car at 64K miles, it would have had more than 5 more problems from 64 to 164K miles.
Had a buddy that had a Chevy that went back to the dealer for work 5 or 6 times in the first year. From mile 10,000 to mile 200,000+ all he did was tune ups and oil changes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We bought a 1976 Volvo and it had lots of problems during the one-year warranty period - differential repair, squeaky fan motor replaced, engine ran terribly, battery went dead, leaky tranny, etc. All problems were fixed free of charge.
After that, the car was flawless until we sold it in 1987.
"A stringent tightening of banking rules would alleviate this and put the US back in the black instead of a debtor society."
Great idea, only our economy is driven by consumer spending, especially the auto industry. The rules would collapse the economy beyond what was seen in the Great Depression. We would have to return to the hunter-gatherer type society and wait around for the next industrial revolution.
"Prices are inflated because banks finance them readily. Too many "upside downs" and the house of cards will fall."
I'm in the banking industry, and all of that is managed to prevent a "house of cards" scenario. New cars especially can be very high quality loans if done properly, even with some negative equity.
I've come to the conclusion that there are just some manufacturers that engineer and assemble their products just settle for "just enough" to get by. To some mamnufacturers, the risks and costs of that line of thinking are acceptable. To others, it's not.
The wild success of Toyota's Hybrids tells me they are well ahead of the curve for engineering prowess...as is their reputation for lengevity. Compare that to where Detroit is today with developing such systems or longevity. It's sad.
Take a look at a 5 year old Civic or Corolla and compare it to a 5 year old Cavalier. The emphasis on what company builds the better car is glaring.
I'm just one consumer, but being a charter member of the CCBA sect, I can tell a definite difference between the engineering, build of a BMW or Honda product to that of Cadillac, for example. I know my BMW actually feels over engineered, in comparison. Just last night, I had the opportunity to ride in a friend's new Accord going out to dinner. The gap in engineering and assembly quality of that car, compared to the STS, is immediately apparent...with the nod going to the Accord. You can tell where Honda spends their time, and where Cadillac spent theirs.
Taking that one step further, there's a definite difference between GM's newly released products (the Tahoe, in particular) to that of the Cadillac STS. Tahoe is much better (I'm assuming the same for any of GM's recently updated products). It's clear the engineering and build is much better and more thorough.
I didn't enter into a fight with Cadillac without doing some in-depth research. I can tell you I wasn't remotely alone as the only person that had the rear window implode or had sub par electronics. The car was just poorly engineered, making it, in my mind, a lemon.
Do I think that Honda purposely calibrated their Odometers loosely? Nope! Do I think they purposely underengineered their automatic transmissions a few years back? Nope. Do I think Toyota's "engine sludge" issue was a result of poor engineering or design? Nope. It's just that millions of miles of consumer experience taught them something that hopefully they learned from.
There's more than anecdotal evidence that the longevity and build of a Honda or BMW is greater than that of a comparable GM product (at least as of today).
That brings me back to Cadillac. I DO think they "underengineered" the current iteration of the STS. I think Cadillac engineers were perhaps hamstrung by the GM accountants. The issues that I had, as well as many others, all point to the fact that components were "half baked" and poorly tested....Cadillac knew it. Thorough testing would have brought these issues to light. Cadillac was willing to "risk" it. I'm sure that was based on some sort of cost/bennefit ratio.
Hopefully, all of GM knows that doesn't cut mustard...especially now. I hope their new products are proof of that.
But I do have a sneaking hunch something hit that rear window. It doesn't take much
Well hard to tell what caused it to break but it is possible that the window was improperly installed. I believe he said it was cold when it broke. (I could be wrong about this) I have seen windows, that were not replaced properly, break when the temperature changed and the metal around the window expanded or contracted. It is possible that the window was installed in some type of bind and the temperature change caused it to break.
I wouldn't disagree with you if I were on the other side of the debate. But, I know for a fact that nothing hit the window. Yes, it was cold (32 degrees), but that shouldn't cause a window to shatter. I was driving when it happened. Not another vehicle or person in site.
Add to that, I know of at least 22 others who contacted me that had the same thing happen....driving along and the rear window implodes for no known reason. And, that's just the ones I'm aware of. Who knows how many more it's happened to. That's just too much to be coincidence.
Myself, I'm a strong believer of the "Voodoo" theory. At each car factory a witch doctor stands at the exit an puts a "hex" on certain autos as they roll out the door. This curse then manifests itself randomly throughout the cars' lifetime resisting all attempts to fix. This was surely the explanation for my Toyota truck which rusted and spit out alternators and head gaskets as if possessed by the devil.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
But I do have a sneaking hunch something hit that rear window. It doesn't take much.
funny... my worst car ever, a 1995 Dodge/Chrysler Neon had the windshield crack in half while it was parked in the shade on a very hot day. NOTHING hit that windshield. Well... maybe it was hit with poor engineering, poor parts, poor build quality, and lots of lemon juice from all the lemon parts. :lemon: :lemon: :lemon:
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Although I agree that Neons are pretty junky cars, a lot of times a windsheld can break brom a tiny impact that you never noticed. A temperature change can cause the pinprick of a chip to spread and send a crack across the entier windshield.
I once turned a water hose on the windshield of a car on a hot day when I heard this strange sound....ziiiiiiiip!
As I was drying the car I saw my cracked windshield.
No, I knew I had a tiny chip at the very bottom of the glass but it was out of my sight and since it didn't bother me, I had left it alone. I should have had it plugged.
I was down in Harlingen, TX in June picking up a rental 2006 Chevy Cobalt and saw a destroyed windshield. Two huge cracks. The Avis attendant SWORE that the windshield was intact a few hours before.
I kind of knew I was gonna hear from you on this :P But come on, we are just a few guys here talking about cars (something that we like) and not really go into details in order not to spoil the fun. I mean, we are talking in general here. Otherwise, if we reaaaly wanna go into details ( and maybe bore the guys here), ok, the car is not exactly an expense, rather a depreciating asset. Kind of like the nice plow truck that we bought last year. By your example we should book the money saved from Contract plowing to revenue, not depreciation... And our auditors would have a field day Still, I hear what you're saying, and many people like to think that way, as another poster mentioned.
By your example we should book the money saved from Contract plowing to revenue, not depreciation...
Never said that just trying to show that even though it is a depreciating asset it is far more costly not to have a car for most people. Plus profit should not be measured by dollars alone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Car is a lifestyle choice. As such it makes it an expense, not investment. The fact that it is expensive, long-lasting and influences other expenses is irrelevant. One can live without it, although hardly in some places. Same with electricity, water, refrigerator, washing machine, or even computer. Yet we don't call those "investments".
If purchased by a business, it would be considered an expense, except by a transportation company. Whether leased or amortized, it is still an expense. It may increase a net worth of the company or the family, as its depreciating value is still some value, but it remains an expense.
And I would encourage financial advisors to tell people just that. Otherwise, people will find even more ways that they do today to justify purchasing something they can't really afford with phrases like "Oh, since it is an investment, I better buy something better" (read more expensive than necessary), to preserve the value. They will start "investing" in the newest hotrod ot luxury SUV, to "protect" their family etc. Don't you hear enough of that already?
True but as such you put something into it and get something out of it. Hence you are investing into it and getting a return from it (remember profit and return do not have to mean monetary).
And I would encourage financial advisors to tell people just that.
I am a financial professional are you.
Otherwise, people will find even more ways that they do today to justify purchasing something they can't really afford with phrases like "Oh, since it is an investment, I better buy something better"
Poor example because any financial advisor will tell you that not every investment is a good investment for everyone (or anyone for that matter). Case in point no financial advisor would advise to to invest $20K to get a $100 return if you can get that same $100 return from investing $5K. So in your example you are not getting much more (if anything) out of that Luxury SUV than you would be from a more moderately priced SUV. In both cases your getting the same out of it (the $100) but one costs a lot more and the return is less (percentage wise).
Again anyone who says its not an investment should try living without their car for a week or so.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No, I'm not, but I knew you were. All I try to say is that people apply things without proper context all the time. Generally agreeing that car MIGHT be seing as an investment in certain situations or in certain context (I maintain though - it's not its primary purpose, similar to a primary residence), it is dangerous, IMHO, to when a known (here to us) financial professional says thinks like "car is an investment" in somewhat blanket way.
Many people already making poor decisions may that a perfect crytch to justify their poor habits and reinforce their behavior. "See this financial guy? He said our new over the top and over the head Wondermobile is an investment - we must be doing something right". I know it's not what you mean - just worry some one may get hurt taking it out of context. That's all.
Snakeweasel, Sorry to say this, but I don't know of any of my friends or relatives in the financial community that would ever consider a car an investment. Heck, there are SVPs that get long-wheelbase BMWs and the like to cart around VCs, clients, and other VIPs that do so out of necessity and they actually make at least something that can be considered a partial RETURN on their investment (i.e. by closing deals). No accountant (none of my uncles, friends, or cousins) that I know of would dare label the purchase of a vehicle as an investment. Even businesses that lease fleets of vehicles have to list them as company expenses -- they don't put it on the books trying to persuade investors that it will increase the company's value or the value of their stock. At best, they can convince them that it is a necessary expense of doing business. So, I don't see my view of "investment" being too narrow at all. If anything, you should seriously look into and find a common situation where it can be documented as such. Until then, I'll stick to the fact that a vehicle purchase is in no way an investment, unless of course you are a dealer using the already established selling rates (retail sale, trade-in, and dealership price) to garner a positive return. Besides, the very nature of an investment is that it is unnecessary if you don't have it. You've been making the point for us all along by insisting that it is a requirement.
To some extent a vehicle is an investement in a depreciating asset (antiques excluded). Ask this simple question: what is your life NPV with a vehicle versus without? Do not forget to monetize every aspect related to ownership including joy rides, complements, etc. If it is higher with a vehicle then without, then buy it. However, if it is lower.... without one you will certainly miss on some "opportunities"... Also, feel free to evaluate the "life" NPV with a Camry versus 7-series.
If you honestly monetize everything, the answer is actually pretty easy. If you ignore everything and go with "your gut" it is easy to justify anything! :surprise:
Snake, I remember my Economics professor (at Loyola) defining economizing as "maximizing your satisfaction". That implies there is more to economizing than money. I would like your comment on that statement.
abraindrainer, BTW, I like your username, pretty cool! But, I digress - back on topic. No question what my NPV is with a vehicle vs. without, but we're not talking about that. We're talking more about ROI. That is much harder to calculate because it isn't a direct relation. Very few jobs can declare this association. In other words, most people don't get paid to drive their car around. Moreover, most people don't get paid more for their car when they sell it then when they bought it, and certainly we don't get paid for filling our tanks, maintaining it or repairing and insuring it. So, while NPV is great, it isn't indicative of an investment. My NPV with my family is very high than without, but I don't consider that an "investment". Neither is breathing air, drinking water, etc. If you think of investments in that sense, then virtually everything is considered an investment and the word looses all meaning. My coffee mug is an investment, my computer screen is an investment, my shoes, socks, shampoo and toothpaste are all investments by that definition. Investment first and foremost is supposed to bring about the likeliness of a return on your money. That means that people that gamble are not "investing" (unless they own the casino). The point is that it isn't a necessity for life. The fact that a car is being stated as "necessary" just proves my point -- that is what I've been trying to say here. The very fact that you NEED a vehicle almost exclusively prevents it from being categorized that way. I NEED to breathe air and I NEED to go to the bathroom just as much as I NEED to drink water. None of these are investments. Just because something is valuable to us, does not mean that it is an investment -- that is just plain false. Here is an example; most people consider their home an investment. Certainly it is by most people's standards, but truthfully it isn't because you NEED to live in it. However, if you are able to rent a room from it, or if you are able to buy a different home that you can flip or rent out, then that certainly is an investment. This is a similar example to what has been described here with cars -- a dealer can state that vehicles are an investment because for him/her that is their business. They don't use every vehicle for their personal use to get too and from work. Those vehicles sit on the lot so that they can be sold. For you and I, a vehicle helps us get around, but in and of itself, it makes no money for us (in fact it is a huge financial drain). Similarly, a house is that way -- we live in it and the house doesn't pay us money to do so (in fact, it too is a huge financial drain). However, buying other homes, improving them, and reselling them is considered an investment. If vehicles were truly an "investment" as is stated here, people would be constantly buying "new" ones from dealers and trying to resell them right away for more money. Its hard enough for dealerships to do that with vehicles they buy from auctions, much less trying for regular consumers.
Comments
Many of the problems discussed here are not serious issues, but I can tell you that if it were a transmission or braking or air-bag problem, I would not touch that vehicle without a written guarantee extending the coverage on that particular area of the vehicle. Accidents that are caused by things like this or that these problems end up making a situation worse are certainly concern for the consumer more than the lemon law itself.
I think it's a mixture of things that make cars lemons. In the Cadillac's case, I think it was "half-baked" design/engineering and just plain sloppiness in its build. There were many electrical glitches, but the icing on the cake was when the rear window imploded. Could it be fixed? Of course. But, there comes a point when it's clear that a mixture of dealership service ineptitude, poor design and poor assembly is enough for the consumer to not put up with the problems. Especially when, as you say, the customer's faith is shattered in the product.
Personally, I've never heard of such failures in any Honda products, which is good for you. But, even the mighty Toyota has had their fair share of glitches, recently. Surprisingly, I've not heard of such things with Subarus, either. That might account for their rabid fan base.
Pick up todays USA Today...it seems that Honda has no idea how to make an accurate odometer..They also didn't think it was too important until the lawsuits started flying...I won't even go into the tranny failure issues. The point is all mfg occasionally build good cars that go bad. Some mfg handle it pretty well and some don't, as you recently found out.
I would call that an expenditure.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
In the defense of those techs, some problems can be a nightmare to track down.
First of all, I'm sure you guys won't believe me so you might want to call your local Honda dealer and ask them yourself. Just don't call one of the stores that short cutted YOUR 3 mile PDI!
I asked three techs and our Service Manager...10 miles!
They usually come off the trucks with 3-5 miles. We drive them a half mile to fill the gas tanks and the techs road test them as they check various functions.
Four guys opinions does not make it a REQUIREMENT. It could make it an urban legend.
This is more sales man talk? You are not really that naive, are you? Have you ever brought in a vehicle and it had the same problem when you got it back even after you had gifted someone a few hundred for the repair? Have you ever had reassembly that was not properly done? In some cases, dealerships fix the symptom and not the cause and the owner is stuck with a reoccuring problem.
In my view, any significant repair could always remain troublesome because the workmanship at many shops and dealership is just so poor! I am not saying that all the fixes are not working for me but I am saying that many repairs do not return the vehicle even close to its original operating condition.
OK, I'm liar. I made this all up.
Whey don't you call some Honda dealers(that follow the RULES) and ask them?
Then you can come back here and apologize.
You are talking about a job that failed because of sloppy workmanship or a bad part.
"sales man talk"...here you go again.
The vast majority of repairs done at a dealer or quality shop will turn out fine. You always want to dwell on the negatives.
Ironically, this is surely one time a salesperson here is looking out for our best interests and we're actually seeing that others were offering questionable services.
Geesh, I'm actually defending isell. LOL
Keep in mind that the odometers are all within the standard set by the Feds. In the case of this class action suit, IMHO Honda decided to settle instead of fighting.
Guess who's getting rich on the settlement??
I try to focus on the full spectrum of possibilities! Do you only look at the rosie side of things? You have never seen or heard of a vehicle that deserved the lemon designation? NEVER? I am just saying that some vehicles have problems that dealers cannot fix for what ever reason... it could even be because the owner is abusing the vehicle.
The issue is that problems CAN come up more than once sometime because of poor design and sometimes because of poor repair/judgement: let's say you bring in the vehicle for uneven tire wear and the dealership replaces the tires and even aligns the beast; well that may not be the actual problem and in a few miles you are back to the same problem but by then you are out of the warranty period...
I prefer to think that I am a realist and even though you and I do not agree on a few points I have agreed with you on some points. I see less of that "agree to disagree" on a few points from you! Example: Do you think it is "fair" to charge $90 in labour to empty & refill a rear end on a Pilot? It actually takes as much work than an oil change?
Furthermore, I could just as easily get replacements for the car that would be considerably cheaper (i.e. taking public transportation, cycling, etc)
Public transportation and cycling may not be cheaper considering other costs involved. Sure I can take public transportation to work, but it would take me 3 times as long to get there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I would say that having an official document from Honda and nothing less as checking out the requirement.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You make a good point, and I agree that the disposition of the 2006 "lemon" is an issue. Still, the issue exists whether billonthelake buys an available 2007 or a left-over 2006 obtained by exchange. The exchange doesn't have to involve the lemon.
Again, good luck to Bill.
The chances of something else breaking would be the same as any other car..
You are kidding right? There are thousands of cars on the road that have virtually bulletproof reliability and nothing ever goes wrong. There are thousands of cars out there that seem to be in the shop every 3 months quite consistently. From my direct experience, it is a fallacy to think "we'll, I've repaired just about everything on this car, so what else could go wrong?"
People that think that way are fooling themselves. There is a lot that could go wrong, many many times.
If you're referring to the cars you have owned then I would have reservations about the sample size upon which those inferences are drawn.
On the one hand, if component failures were truly random then your experiences could be regarded as statistical flukes. On the other hand, a confluence of factors at the assembly line on a particular day could produce a correlative effect on component reliability in a subset of vehicles sold. In that case you have been extraordinarily lucky or unlucky in your purchases.
However, I don't believe enough supporting data has been provided here to draw statistically sound conclusions either way.
tidester, host
Certain manufacturers were smart to only use the highest quality lowest failure rate components, and therefore produced highly reliable cars.
But "failure rate" implies randomness! (Think Markov if you're into stats - otherwise, nevermind.)
tidester, host
Just because you go back a few times to get things fixed doesn't mean that once those bugs are fixed you won't get lots of worry free miles out of your car.
I can guarantee you that if I hadn't sold that car at 64K miles, it would have had more than 5 more problems from 64 to 164K miles.
Had a buddy that had a Chevy that went back to the dealer for work 5 or 6 times in the first year. From mile 10,000 to mile 200,000+ all he did was tune ups and oil changes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We bought a 1976 Volvo and it had lots of problems during the one-year warranty period - differential repair, squeaky fan motor replaced, engine ran terribly, battery went dead, leaky tranny, etc. All problems were fixed free of charge.
After that, the car was flawless until we sold it in 1987.
It's funny how things work out, isn't it?
I'm sure it's not the lawyers...they are only in it to fight for the rights of the average person.
NOT!!
Great idea, only our economy is driven by consumer spending, especially the auto industry. The rules would collapse the economy beyond what was seen in the Great Depression. We would have to return to the hunter-gatherer type society and wait around for the next industrial revolution.
"Prices are inflated because banks finance them readily. Too many "upside downs" and the house of cards will fall."
I'm in the banking industry, and all of that is managed to prevent a "house of cards" scenario. New cars especially can be very high quality loans if done properly, even with some negative equity.
The wild success of Toyota's Hybrids tells me they are well ahead of the curve for engineering prowess...as is their reputation for lengevity. Compare that to where Detroit is today with developing such systems or longevity. It's sad.
Take a look at a 5 year old Civic or Corolla and compare it to a 5 year old Cavalier. The emphasis on what company builds the better car is glaring.
I'm just one consumer, but being a charter member of the CCBA sect, I can tell a definite difference between the engineering, build of a BMW or Honda product to that of Cadillac, for example. I know my BMW actually feels over engineered, in comparison. Just last night, I had the opportunity to ride in a friend's new Accord going out to dinner. The gap in engineering and assembly quality of that car, compared to the STS, is immediately apparent...with the nod going to the Accord. You can tell where Honda spends their time, and where Cadillac spent theirs.
Taking that one step further, there's a definite difference between GM's newly released products (the Tahoe, in particular) to that of the Cadillac STS. Tahoe is much better (I'm assuming the same for any of GM's recently updated products). It's clear the engineering and build is much better and more thorough.
I didn't enter into a fight with Cadillac without doing some in-depth research. I can tell you I wasn't remotely alone as the only person that had the rear window implode or had sub par electronics. The car was just poorly engineered, making it, in my mind, a lemon.
Do I think that Honda purposely calibrated their Odometers loosely? Nope! Do I think they purposely underengineered their automatic transmissions a few years back? Nope. Do I think Toyota's "engine sludge" issue was a result of poor engineering or design? Nope. It's just that millions of miles of consumer experience taught them something that hopefully they learned from.
There's more than anecdotal evidence that the longevity and build of a Honda or BMW is greater than that of a comparable GM product (at least as of today).
That brings me back to Cadillac. I DO think they "underengineered" the current iteration of the STS. I think Cadillac engineers were perhaps hamstrung by the GM accountants. The issues that I had, as well as many others, all point to the fact that components were "half baked" and poorly tested....Cadillac knew it. Thorough testing would have brought these issues to light. Cadillac was willing to "risk" it. I'm sure that was based on some sort of cost/bennefit ratio.
Hopefully, all of GM knows that doesn't cut mustard...especially now. I hope their new products are proof of that.
Off the sopa box......
Well hard to tell what caused it to break but it is possible that the window was improperly installed. I believe he said it was cold when it broke. (I could be wrong about this) I have seen windows, that were not replaced properly, break when the temperature changed and the metal around the window expanded or contracted. It is possible that the window was installed in some type of bind and the temperature change caused it to break.
Add to that, I know of at least 22 others who contacted me that had the same thing happen....driving along and the rear window implodes for no known reason. And, that's just the ones I'm aware of. Who knows how many more it's happened to. That's just too much to be coincidence.
Poor engineering? Poor component supplier? Poor assembly?
I think all 3.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Rear window defrosters can do that too. I had that happen once.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
the USAAF (U.S. Army Air Force) in WWII blamed things on gremlins.
This was surely the explanation for my Toyota truck which rusted and spit out alternators and head gaskets as if possessed by the devil.
Nope its just Toyota itself is possessed in such a way.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
funny... my worst car ever, a 1995 Dodge/Chrysler Neon had the windshield crack in half while it was parked in the shade on a very hot day. NOTHING hit that windshield. Well... maybe it was hit with poor engineering, poor parts, poor build quality, and lots of lemon juice from all the lemon parts. :lemon: :lemon: :lemon:
I once turned a water hose on the windshield of a car on a hot day when I heard this strange sound....ziiiiiiiip!
As I was drying the car I saw my cracked windshield.
No, I knew I had a tiny chip at the very bottom of the glass but it was out of my sight and since it didn't bother me, I had left it alone. I should have had it plugged.
But come on, we are just a few guys here talking about cars (something that we like) and not really go into details in order not to spoil the fun. I mean, we are talking in general here. Otherwise, if we reaaaly wanna go into details ( and maybe bore the guys here), ok, the car is not exactly an expense, rather a depreciating asset. Kind of like the nice plow truck that we bought last year. By your example we should book the money saved from Contract plowing to revenue, not depreciation...
And our auditors would have a field day
Still, I hear what you're saying, and many people like to think that way, as another poster mentioned.
Never said that just trying to show that even though it is a depreciating asset it is far more costly not to have a car for most people. Plus profit should not be measured by dollars alone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If purchased by a business, it would be considered an expense, except by a transportation company. Whether leased or amortized, it is still an expense. It may increase a net worth of the company or the family, as its depreciating value is still some value, but it remains an expense.
And I would encourage financial advisors to tell people just that. Otherwise, people will find even more ways that they do today to justify purchasing something they can't really afford with phrases like "Oh, since it is an investment, I better buy something better" (read more expensive than necessary), to preserve the value. They will start "investing" in the newest hotrod ot luxury SUV, to "protect" their family etc. Don't you hear enough of that already?
2018 430i Gran Coupe
True but as such you put something into it and get something out of it. Hence you are investing into it and getting a return from it (remember profit and return do not have to mean monetary).
And I would encourage financial advisors to tell people just that.
I am a financial professional are you.
Otherwise, people will find even more ways that they do today to justify purchasing something they can't really afford with phrases like "Oh, since it is an investment, I better buy something better"
Poor example because any financial advisor will tell you that not every investment is a good investment for everyone (or anyone for that matter). Case in point no financial advisor would advise to to invest $20K to get a $100 return if you can get that same $100 return from investing $5K. So in your example you are not getting much more (if anything) out of that Luxury SUV than you would be from a more moderately priced SUV. In both cases your getting the same out of it (the $100) but one costs a lot more and the return is less (percentage wise).
Again anyone who says its not an investment should try living without their car for a week or so.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So would that make food an investment too?
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
No, I'm not, but I knew you were. All I try to say is that people apply things without proper context all the time. Generally agreeing that car MIGHT be seing as an investment in certain situations or in certain context (I maintain though - it's not its primary purpose, similar to a primary residence), it is dangerous, IMHO, to when a known (here to us) financial professional says thinks like "car is an investment" in somewhat blanket way.
Many people already making poor decisions may that a perfect crytch to justify their poor habits and reinforce their behavior. "See this financial guy? He said our new over the top and over the head Wondermobile is an investment - we must be doing something right". I know it's not what you mean - just worry some one may get hurt taking it out of context. That's all.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Just can't bring myself to think of it as an investment.
Dino001 worded the reasons very nicely.
Sorry to say this, but I don't know of any of my friends or relatives in the financial community that would ever consider a car an investment. Heck, there are SVPs that get long-wheelbase BMWs and the like to cart around VCs, clients, and other VIPs that do so out of necessity and they actually make at least something that can be considered a partial RETURN on their investment (i.e. by closing deals).
No accountant (none of my uncles, friends, or cousins) that I know of would dare label the purchase of a vehicle as an investment. Even businesses that lease fleets of vehicles have to list them as company expenses -- they don't put it on the books trying to persuade investors that it will increase the company's value or the value of their stock. At best, they can convince them that it is a necessary expense of doing business.
So, I don't see my view of "investment" being too narrow at all. If anything, you should seriously look into and find a common situation where it can be documented as such. Until then, I'll stick to the fact that a vehicle purchase is in no way an investment, unless of course you are a dealer using the already established selling rates (retail sale, trade-in, and dealership price) to garner a positive return.
Besides, the very nature of an investment is that it is unnecessary if you don't have it. You've been making the point for us all along by insisting that it is a requirement.
If you honestly monetize everything, the answer is actually pretty easy. If you ignore everything and go with "your gut" it is easy to justify anything! :surprise:
BTW, I like your username, pretty cool! But, I digress - back on topic. No question what my NPV is with a vehicle vs. without, but we're not talking about that. We're talking more about ROI. That is much harder to calculate because it isn't a direct relation. Very few jobs can declare this association. In other words, most people don't get paid to drive their car around. Moreover, most people don't get paid more for their car when they sell it then when they bought it, and certainly we don't get paid for filling our tanks, maintaining it or repairing and insuring it.
So, while NPV is great, it isn't indicative of an investment. My NPV with my family is very high than without, but I don't consider that an "investment". Neither is breathing air, drinking water, etc.
If you think of investments in that sense, then virtually everything is considered an investment and the word looses all meaning. My coffee mug is an investment, my computer screen is an investment, my shoes, socks, shampoo and toothpaste are all investments by that definition.
Investment first and foremost is supposed to bring about the likeliness of a return on your money. That means that people that gamble are not "investing" (unless they own the casino). The point is that it isn't a necessity for life. The fact that a car is being stated as "necessary" just proves my point -- that is what I've been trying to say here. The very fact that you NEED a vehicle almost exclusively prevents it from being categorized that way. I NEED to breathe air and I NEED to go to the bathroom just as much as I NEED to drink water. None of these are investments.
Just because something is valuable to us, does not mean that it is an investment -- that is just plain false.
Here is an example; most people consider their home an investment. Certainly it is by most people's standards, but truthfully it isn't because you NEED to live in it. However, if you are able to rent a room from it, or if you are able to buy a different home that you can flip or rent out, then that certainly is an investment.
This is a similar example to what has been described here with cars -- a dealer can state that vehicles are an investment because for him/her that is their business. They don't use every vehicle for their personal use to get too and from work. Those vehicles sit on the lot so that they can be sold. For you and I, a vehicle helps us get around, but in and of itself, it makes no money for us (in fact it is a huge financial drain). Similarly, a house is that way -- we live in it and the house doesn't pay us money to do so (in fact, it too is a huge financial drain). However, buying other homes, improving them, and reselling them is considered an investment. If vehicles were truly an "investment" as is stated here, people would be constantly buying "new" ones from dealers and trying to resell them right away for more money. Its hard enough for dealerships to do that with vehicles they buy from auctions, much less trying for regular consumers.