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
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Maybe you hear more about GM/Ford recalls because they have so many.
If I took my work truck (96 Chevy S10) in for every recall they have listed, they would have my truck until Christmas. And these are SAFETY RECALLS (not voluntary recalls). They get reported in the news because they are SAFETY related (things like seat belts that tear, and seats that don't hold up in a crash, or fires). An automatic transmission is not a SAFETY concern, therefore the company does the recall on their own (not required by the government). SAFETY recalls are reported (on the news). Voluntary recalls are not. Get it?
There is no (media) conspiracy against GM/Ford. Except by GM/Ford themselves.
Huh? You asked us to look those numbers up in post #6025 and I did it. Didn't you like what you saw? :surprise:
I have no use for those numbers and was proving to you and scape2, because you two were arguing about them, that they are useless. What? Now that you've seen them you're going to deny everything you posted before you saw them? :confuse:
Even with an aged design, Accords are flying off the lots around here.
I never, repeat never said I thought these numbers meant anything. Just going along with the useless game.
Just another fruitless attempt at discrediting Honda and Toyota.
I couldn't care less, if someone buys a car other than the Accord. But bashing it, to make themselves feel better about the decision, rubs me the wrong way.
I wasn't bashing the Accord. Just doing what you asked to hopefully stop the madness that was Google search results!
Using Google search results to judge a vehicles quality/reliability is akin to using the total number of posts on it's edmunds.com "Problems and Solutions" thread. Completely useless.
Honda Accord (2003-2006) Maintenance & Repair
Honda Accord (1976-1989) Maintenance & Repair
Honda Accord (1990-1993) Maintenance & Repair
Honda Accord (1994-1997) Maintenance & Repair
Honda Accord (1998-2002) Maintenance & Repair
Accord Brake woes (2004+)
Edmunds broke the ages into separate groups to hide the great volumes of records of problems posted here!
The prior discussion
Honda Accord Owners: Problems & Solutions
is archived here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This is true of positive, negative or neutral posts. There is no way that only a statistically accurate representative sample of any brand owners is posting on any message board. But even if that impossibility would be possible, the numbers of posts STILL don't mean anything, because they don't each represent an individual problem.
For example: people looking to buy often drop into P&S discussions to see what's up. They ask about the model - the posts go on for several pages, some praising the vehicle, some repeating problems they've already posted many times, some giving buying advice, etc.
That's just one example of how numbers go up when no new problems were reported.
I would like to officially end this line of conversation and get back to discussing the actual cars.
Please and thank you!
I think most cars are good anyway, even without a JDP or a CR endorsement.
By brand name, Mercury, Buick and Cadillac ranked second thrird and fourth behind Lexus. Toyota was fifth, Honda seventh.
Honda as a brand had 194 problems per 100 vehicles. Ford brand name was 12th on the list with 227 problems per 100 vehicles. Thus on the average, a Honda had 1.94 problems per vehicle, and Ford had 2.27. Hardly an overwhelming difference!
Also note that Accord or Camry were not in the top three in the midsize car category. First was Buick Century, followed by Buick Regal, and third was Mercury Sable. Yes these vehicles were mature designs from GM and Ford, but you will also note that Camry was in its second year in model year 2003, so with Toyota's vaunted quality, you would think they could at least beat out Detroit iron in their second model year of this design.
Honda had 1.94 problems per vehicle = Accord had 1.94 problems per vehicle.
Ford had 2.27 problems per vehicle = Taurus had 2.27 problems per vehicle.
Doesn't the analogy seem odd to you?
Makes me look forward to the CVT Altima.
I'm looking forward to the Sentra especially seeing as it hasn't been redesigned since 2000. But the Altima is the car that will make or break Nissan's useage of CVT because it's going to be the volume seller. I usually recommend Honda's but it's Nissan that's got the soft spot in my heart.
2007 and 2008 are going to be interesting years for the midsize sedan segment.
2007 New Models include
-Chrysler Sebring (Coming out in Sept or October of this 06)
-Nissan Altima (November)
-Saturn Aura (out NOW I've seen one locally here in S.C.)
-Toyota Camry (already OUT)
2008 Will be HOT as well
-New Malibu (for some reason it reminds me of the current Acura TL)
-New Accord
-New Mazda6
-New Dodge Avenger (should be out around Jan of 2007)
-New Verona (if that means anything to anyone)
So basically everything in the segment will be pretty fresh by the 2008 model year. Even the Sonata will probably be getting ready for a refresh by then. This market is getting better and better each year.
The current Malibu seems to be an OK car with very frumpy styling, but the new one looks like it will have decent styling from what I can see beyond all the camouflage
Malibu Hybrid won't have the same level of technology--GM is a good generation or two behind Toyota and Honda. Toyota's hybrid technology is easily the most advanced, but Honda is catching up. Ford is basically using Toyota's first generation technology, but GM is not even really at that point yet.
((((APPLAUSE))))
I've been preaching this for over a year now! Bravo, pat!
THANK-YOU!!! badgerfan!! One of my points you nail right on the head! Education is key here. With the media pounding it into peoples heads over the years that anything Ford/GM is garbage and anything Honda/Toyota is gold.. There are those who need to see real numbers. Reliability is pretty much a non-factor in todays automobiles. With the way Honda fans talk you would have thought Honda's are just light years ahead of Ford in reliability still. 1.94 vs 2.27!! problems.. Hardly light years.. :shades:
How do the Accord and Camry 4 cylinder engines compare in mileage and performance?? For those of you who have made the transition from 4-to-6 cylinder engines, is the loss of power worth the extra mileage?? Were you disappointed or pleased when transitioning from the 4 to the 6 cylinder engine?? How about the Camry's new 6 speed transmission and its increased mileage -- worth sticking with the V6 rather then transitioning to a 4??
Thanks!!
I came from a 253 HP V6 to an '07 Camry XLE I4.
I occassionally miss the power but would rather the better mileage.
My Camry has no rattles or hesitation and is quiet and competent.
The I4 will get about 2-3 mpg better in real world mileage.
may not be overwhelming but significant.
but never mind that. my beef with JD Powers is that the problems are all given the same weight. a transmission problem is a little more serious than a rattle.
i wouldn't buy a GM or Ford based upon reliability. my issues with their sedans are with design. that's where IMO the Accord and Camry are still at a higher level than the competition from Ford and GM. The Saturn Aura may change that. This car is very promising. The Fusion isn't very far behind.
This is very well-stated. I drove a V-6 Accord back in 2005, and couldn't tell a huge difference in usable power around town, but on the highway, the power never faded off like it does in my Inline-4.
Example, I recently took a trip to Atlanta where I was following friends in a new Maxima. Both cars had 4 people, about 600 pounds total, and had A/C on. Whereas my friend could scoot up a big hill with ease, I had to be more careful in planning my passing, often causing the transmission to downshift in order to get into the left lane. Her car flew past trucks, while mine meekly passed them (this was at 75-80 MPH speeds in Georgia hills). Around town though, there's very little difference. I'm normally alone in my car, and this car still felt like a rocket compared to my old 130 hp LX Accord ('96), and I needed the better economy more than i wanted the speed.
Best part of the trip? I got 32 MPG, she got 23MPG. I loved it!
I also fear that keeping a car much longer that 3-4 years presents another economical problem. The longer you keep your car the more it decreases in value while the new car prices continue to increase; the $$$ gap in between grows also. It becomes a matter of trading now and putting $12-13,000 of my $$$ into a new car or waiting a couple of years and needing to add $15-17,00. I realize that keeping a car longer is the best way to get most of your $$$ out of it and that both Honda and Toyota car have a lifespan well over 100,000 miles but adding $15-17,000 or more to your trade is really hard for me to swallow. Especially given the depreciative nature of a modern car investment!!
All advice is welcome
It kind of sounds like a sales tactic a car salesman would use on a potential buyer who was hesitating to make a purchase:
"You need to buy now, because your trade-in value is dropping every day you wait."
Has anyone here worked out those numbers and found it less expensive to change cars every 2 or three years instead of every 5 or 6 years etc.?
Aren't you simply shifting the depreciation costs from a slowly depreciating older car to a new car that will depreciate at a more accelerated rate?
"You need to buy now, because your trade-in value is dropping every day you wait."
You make a very strong point and, although I'm not sure, maybe I did get this "idea" from a car saleperson. All I know for sure is that according to www.kbb.com, my car (in good condition) is now only worth $12,485. $12,500 is exactly what my local Honda dealership offered for my trade. In three years of ownership I lost over $14,000; the original sticker for my Camry was 26,000+!! Additionally, I'm not considering a private sale but I realize that would make a difference.
I realize the as the car ages it depreciates slower but what about the added mileage (or is that included in the depreciation factor - I don't know :confuse: ). If I could keep the current mileage at 28,000, you're probably right about the significantly slower rate of depreciation based on age alone. However, I'll be driving it as it depreciates.
To test this theory, I when back to www.kbb.com and checked the trade-in value of this same, exact car only being 1 year older (02) with my approximate yearly (average) of 9,000 miles added to my current 28,000. Now, for waiting that extra year w/added mileage its value is down to $10,680 in good condition. I've now lost a little less than two grand in one year!!
It's very possible I'm wrong in using this "theory" but I thought that's how it worked. As a matter of fact, I hope I'm wrong because at this rate if I wait a couple more years, who knows what I'll be able to afford :confuse:
However....... we all certainly don't follow that advice, do we.
Look at it this way. If you trade your car now, you have paid over $4,500 per year ($14,000 divided by 3) for the car you are trading. You said if you waited another year, it would be less than $2,000 for one year. Every year it depreciates less, and you end up paying less, per year, for the car. I bought a car for $20,000 in 91. I sold it in 03 for $4,000. So I ended up paying $16,000 total (after resale). $16,000 divided by 12 years adds up to less than $1,500 per year. The longer you keep a car, the less (per year) you end up paying for it.
The difference over 10 years is just about a new car cost left in your bank account.
In a couple of years, my car plus (let's conservatively say) $16,000 may not be financially possible regardless of how much my current car has cost me per year. Right now I'm comfortable with my car plus $12-14,000 hence the new car search.
Toyota Camry Woes
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Go ahead and buy a new car every couple years if you want, but it is very silly to try to justify it based on financial considerations.
When you lease you still have to pay for the depreciation in the lease payments or it makes no sense for the leasing company.
Maybe I'm missing something or just thick-headed but the longer I keep my current car the more $$$ I need to come up with in order to buy a comparable car. (I think I said that earlier) I genuinely want to keep my current car longer but my question is can I afford to do so!!! By the way, with the introduction of the 07s, my Camry is actually now four years old and my SUV is five years old.
If I keep my car, let's say 8-10 years, then buy a comparable new car, would you have me finance the $18,000-$20,000 difference?? What would a 36 or 40 month (my maximum) loan like that cost per month -- $400, $500, or more!!! Maybe I could tighten the belt and save the difference. Than again, what about my daughter in college, my home mortgage, and those pesky medical expenses my health insurance doesn't pay, etc. We all have them so you know how much they can drain a saving account. Oh, and did I mention, no money to burn in this family!! I've considered leasing but have chosen not to go that route.
I apologize for the argumentative tone my replies may have taken. Possibly there are no clear answers, just priorities. Any ways, I did get the feedback I need about the 4 vs. 6 cylinder engines
And if you are talking about Toyota, the reliability factor helps make that even more sensible.
The first 3-5 years of any new car's life are by far the most expensive due to the rapid initial depreciation that occurs. No way around this fact. Lease rates also take into account this fact, though if you really insist on driving a nearly new car all the time, a 2-3 year lease, in which you are essentially renting a car all the time, may make sense. But you will still spend much more per year than anyone who buys a new car and drives it a long time.
I did a little exercise on that, and was surprised that the cost per year of ownership is very close to a new car. Figuring a 3-4 year old Camry or Accord, (I wouldn't want to buy anything older), cost of owning it 6 or 7 more years is pretty high. The only way you can come out is to buy an older used car, and they usually come with too much baggage. I'm paying ~$1900 a year for a new car at this time, assuming I keep the car for the usual 10 years. The car is under warranty for the entire 10 years.
The first is buy it and drive it for 15 years until you are really really tired of it. It will cost you less than $1500 per year in 'depreciation'. During this period put $200/mo or so into a mutual fund and let it grow. That's $2400/yr for at least 10 yrs.
When it comes time to 're-up' consider leasing your next vehicles. Your driving situation seems perfect for leasing. You can leave the $24000+ in the mutual funds - now generating interest - and drive off the lot in a new vehicle with no money out of your pocket ( using the small value of your 15 y.o. trade to cover your first lease payment ).
The $24000+ you have in the mutual fund should generate say $2400 in interest annually so you can drive for the rest of your life with a lease payment of $400/mo, of which $200 comes from interest and $200 comes out of your pocket each month - and you haven't touched the $24000 principal in the mutual fund. A $400/mo lease payment can buy you a lot of car.
All estimates are obviously subject to the vaguaries of interest rate fluctuations and market prices. But statying your your current vehicle for the next 10 years and building up an 'auto nest egg' is the best advice.
I guess some people prefer a new car every couple of years and drive under 12K, so maybe a lease works for them. Would say on an average, a lease is a bad deal. If I am stretching the dollars, I could keep my PT for ten years, and the depreciation should be around 1,ooo to 1,200 per year - not too bad. If I sell it sooner, it could be more like $3,500 to 3,000 per year. Those first couple of years hurt. And thank goodness, I did not buy a fancy PT -- resale sucks on those.
-Loren
P.S. I am always looking and talking cars. I should do as my Dad use to do before he started buying new. He bought good clean used cars every couple to three years. In a way, it is sort of fun to have some variety in life. I may be looking for a second car for a toy -- good used one.
I believe as your dad does that a good 3-5 y.o. vehicle gives anyone the best bang for the buck. Buying a Honda or Toyota auto with 50,000 miles on it and an expected future life of 10+ yrs keeps the depreciation to about $1200/yr or less. Current fuel prices are skewing the market, ergo the Prius.
As you correctly note many people just can't keep a vehicle over 6 yrs ( 3 yrs? ), they just tire of it. For those buyers leasing IMO is perfect. If they are honest with themselves they will never be without an auto payment so why not get the lowest payment, one with the least down and no risk of eventual trade-in value loss. Granted miles driven are a key consideration but even at 18,000 mi/yr it's a good value.
I think it was JP Getty who stated 'rent assets that depreciate, buy assets that appreciate.'