Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread



  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    What point are you making? I don't understand the "stats" you're pulling. The 90-95 Taurus is the same as the 86 Taurus, just as the '06 Taurus is the same as the '96 Taurus.

    My point was that its easier for designs that haven't changed in years to experience lower rates of reliability related issues, since nothing has changed and earlier design/production issue have been rectified.

    Try holding SOME variable contstant. For example, since the 94 to 97 Accord was redesigned FOR the '94 MY, and ran for 4 MY, why not compare it to the '96 Taurus (point of redesign) and extend it 4 MY?

    Also, I think it ironic that you're calling the information you've provided "statistics". How is simply citing a "Reliability Trouble Spot" a statistic? Can you speak to how these areas were determined to be a "Reliability Trouble Spot", because most of us may not know. And repair costs aren't statistics, they're data points.

  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    Wow - are we really seriously challenging the reliablity of the Accord vs. the Taurus?

    I had my Accord 4 years. Lets see - my repair costs were.......$0.00

    I had a Taurus 2 years. Wore me out. I traded it cause I didn't want to fix the slipping transmission nor the coolant leak that couldn't be found (always smelled coolant around that thing) and took a major bath in doing it.

    Never another Ford.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Are you gonna tell us now, because of this one 'study' you've found, that the Taurus is more reliable than the Accord?

    I realize my posts are pretty long, so I'll just NO, I'm not saying that the Taurus is more reliable. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any stats to show that the Accord is more reliable by the way I define it: lower number of repairs and lower overall repair cost. What I'm using as "evidence" to show that the future repair costs between an Accord and Taurus (just as an example, you can replace Taurus with Fusion if you want) may be closer than people think are:

    1) the fact that the extended warranty costs are the same and my reasoning is that it should cost LESS for an extended warranty for cars that are more reliable, while in fact, cars that are popularly known as being more "reliable" (Accord) for example, doesn't have extended warranties any cheaper than any other car.

    2) While the web link I posted isn't a scientific study, on a general level it shows historical repair problem areas and repair costs and I'm more interested in buying a car with the least problems areas and lower repair cost than I am buying a car with the most red circles in CR.

    What does it really mean for car outranking another car in CR or JD Powers? Does this tell you how much more it will cost in repair or how many more trips to the repair show you'll have on average for a given number of years??

    Anyway, I was just trying to think outside of the box of "reliability/quality" because all that's in the box is CR, JD Power, and personal car history stories and for me, none of those 3 are sufficient.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I don't believe in using these statistics in my decision making. But if I did believe in using them, CRs data would have the most influence. And if you would be comfortable in using in influencing a purchasing decision, you should definitely cite them. But I would not use this site for purchase decisions and thus the stats to me are meaningless.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    That's fair...but if 3 our of 100 transmission breaks in an Accord vs 4 out of 100 for the Fusion for example and this is what gives the Fusion clear circle and the Accord a Red circle in CR, BUT it costs twics as much to repair the Accords transmission, I'd rather have the Fusion based on repair cost and you'd rather have the Accord. So would you rather have a 4% chance of paying $2000 vs a 3% chance of paying $ decide.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    cash buyer becuase you don't want to finance, 3-5k would mean selling another stock
    suppose that's one way to look at it - the other, of course would be that depending on how much you actually use the car and how long you keep it, you will recover a good portion of that money, when you trade it in on your next car. A 2003 Accord will be worth approx. 4 grand more at trade in than the Sonata, using 2000 models the difference shrinks to $2300.00. Figures from, trade-in values - the bottom line how much is that Accord really costing you - maybe a couple of grand spread over 7 years? Works out to $25 a month (or $50 if you want to include the time value of the money (either in your savings account or on a loan). As I said, it would certainly be worth it to me to be happy driving the Honda than the Sonata.
    And the Sonata seems to be a damn fine little car, make the alternate a Fusion, G6, Malibu or something like that, and the amount I would be willing to pay to avoid them would double!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the fact that extended warranty costs are about the same would be a indication that your out-of-pocket to keep that Taurus running is comparable. But, if you consider for example , the actual costs of repairs (what the warranties are based on) at double; that would also mean that the Taurus is needing repairs twice as often, which, I think is how things like CRs ratings are based, not on cost of repairs but frequency of them. To me, anyway, is not as much that my car is needing to go into the shop, as it is the inconvenience and trouble it gave me because it does. That is where I think a main difference is between 'Japan, Inc.' and 'Detroit Inc.'
  • robbiegrobbieg Posts: 339
    I agree with you completely about buying a used Honda. Since Hondas really don't lose their value they are not a good buy used. My local used car dealer doesn't buy them at the auction because he can't sell them due to the fact that the comparable Acura is only a little bit more and his customers would much rather drive an Acura than a Honda. The Taurus on the other hand is a good buy used because they can be had for next to nothing.

    Also, if you look on ebay there are far more one year old American cars and truck for sale than comporable foreign models, does anyone know why this is?
    2014 Highlander XLE AWD, 2009 RX 350 AWD and 2007 Odyssey EX
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Once again, when the car is in drive I have no issues..
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Kind of like your song and dance about how cheap the interior of the Fusion/Milan are? or how the hood doesn't close the whole way? You don't get it, I paid less for a car that I am totally happy with.. I paid less than you, I saw past all the image thing...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I guess I'm among the few who like to set the stereo and climate how I like it before I get moving into traffic. Saves some "eyes-off-the-road-time."
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Kind of like your song and dance about how cheap the interior of the Fusion/Milan are? or how the hood doesn't close the whole way? You don't get it, I paid less for a car that I am totally happy with.. I paid less than you, I saw past all the image thing...

    Show me where I mentioned the hood not closing all the way please, I'd love to see it. If you can find it, I'll eat my hat.

    Just because I don't like the DESIGN of an interior, doesn't mean I think it's cheap. You said it, not me. Also, how does me referring to an interior design suddenly make me a buyer of "image?" My point was this: I could have gotten a Fusion with similar features to my Accord for less money. I'm not disputing that. It isn't the features that make the car; the Fusion would be a car that was unsatistying to me because I feel the interior design looks dated, and is not ergonomically well-designed. Would it have been smarter for me to save $2,000 to buy a car I don't like? Is that what you want me to say?

    If it is, then you should have bought a Sonata - same basic features as your car for less money. Why did you buy a Ford over the Hyundai, could it be IMAGE? Maybe not. Maybe you liked the design of your car better, or the way it handled, or the engine, or something else about the car made the Fusion worth more to you than a "comparable" Sonata. Which is it?

    Don't put words in my mouth, scape. It isn't polite, and it takes away your credibility.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Bob, you did it now.. No way can a Taurus be less to own or more reliable than an Accord!! This cannot be so!!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Bob, you did it now.. No way can a Taurus be less to own or more reliable than an Accord!! This cannot be so!! *

    Yeah it can, the Taurus was practically unchanged for 10 years, it better well have all the bugs worked out ten years later.

    *Sarcasm noted
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    if it costs less to fix a Taurus, which it generally will, with antiquated drivetrains etc. - more things must be needing to be fixed, if the total dollars spent on repairs are even close - making the Taurus less reliable! Simple math!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, our neighbors have had the same 1993 Taurus since it was new. Their 16 year old daughter now drives it (she hates it, says she feels like grandmaw!) but the transmission is starting to whine somewhat when she takes off - not good. When they were thinking about selling it to get her another car (it was worth very little, so they took it back off the market) it had 145,000 miles on it. I imagine it's around 160k now. It hasn't been a bad car by any means, however, and the family bought a used 2000-2003 model (not sure what year exactly) Taurus when she started driving, so they must have liked it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I think you miss the point - if we believe that it costs a given amount of dollars to keep a Taurus (or any other car) running for a period of time and it costs the same amount to keep the Accord running (extended warranty costs would indicate that this is true) - and the repairs are generally twice as expensive on the Honda as on the Ford, the Ford MUST BE in the shop twice as often to spend the same amount of money. If the transmission repair numbers cited are right ($4200 vs. $1100.00) then the Ford would be in the shop for transmissions almost 4 times, while the Honda once - an extreme example.
    Although I'm confident that your neighbor's Taurus has needed a significant number of repairs over 14 years and 145k (this would be true of most all cars because it's not just the mileage but also the age). We all have good and bad stories about cars - like my 92 Nissan Maxima that had 280k on it until the tranny crapped out (my fault for not keeping it routinely serviced) and never went back to a dealer for any reason. Does that in itself make the Maxima a good car, or that Taurus you're talking about a good car - NOT NECESSARILY.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I know what you are saying - its a cheap-to-fix car, even though it needs repairs more often than an Accord, which makes it even in costs, and less reliable altogeter (more time in the shop than a Honda, for similar money to repair after X - years). Isn't this your point?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yep, and a point to consider unless you enjoy tow trucks and reading newspapers in the service lounges.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Oh, most definitely. I LOVE being stranded, don't you?

    Actually, I wouldn't know. I've never been left stranded by my 169k mile 11 y.o. Accord except when I was run off the road and ate guardrail (doing $3,100 damage to the car and bending the frame), and even then, I drove the car to the body shop. I waited on the police though, so that was the only real time I've sat on the shoulder of the road.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Let's say a guy is shopping for a car, and looking at Camcords. If he suddenly finds out that the reliability of a Taurus is comparable, is he going to change his mind, and buy a Taurus? Not likely. Just as a guy shopping for BMW 5 series is not going to buy an Accord because he finds out the reliability is better. People will buy the car they want, without much regard to reliability ratings 90% of the time.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, I would think that the Taurus has little going for it except that it is a "decent car." In fact, if you look up "decent car" in the dictionary, I think you'll find "Taurus" as a synonym. It's plain, not real quick, not real efficient, roomy enough, rides ok, is reliable enough, handles safely, and has features you expect standard in a ten year old car.

    In the market for a plain, unexciting car? Try the new ten year old Taurus!

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    elroy5- don't know if I bite on that one - I would be willing to wager that CRs reliability ratings are probably the single most influential outside sourced statistic to the American consumer.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Are we back to this foolishness about being "stranded"? C'mon, it is very rare for anyone to get stranded in any modern car, no matter what brand it is...especially if they keep up with maintenance. To listen to some of the Honota fans, you'd expect to pass several people with broken down american make cars every day.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Also, if you look on ebay there are far more one year old American cars and truck for sale than comporable foreign models, does anyone know why this is?

    Because the rental fleets are mostly American makes and that is a big source of one year old cars.
  • chevy598chevy598 Posts: 162
    The difference between quality numbers is so little now, that for the most part, it doesn't matter whether you buy the best ranked or the worst ranked.
    Example, brand A has an initial quality of 125 problems per 100 vehicles and brand B has an initial quality of 118 problems per 100 vehicles. There's no real difference in quality between brands A & B, its so small that if it were a bug you couldn't see it with your "naked eye".
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    statistically I would be willing to bet you that the most likely cars to 'strand you' are the ones that are most technologically sophisticated - a condition of a computer somewhere 'thinking' something is wrong when it isn't. Can you say BMW? But certainly not a condition of Tauruses (Tauri?) and the like - which, for the time being, is to their advantage.
  • jimmy81jimmy81 Posts: 170
    You are aware that the Taurus is no longer being made -right? Not much of an advantage.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    nice discussion I started ;)

    Don't forget, I was just using the Taurus vs Accord as an example. But since no one has yet posted any URLs with any other studies, I guess we're still sticking to stories.

    Of course I'd never buy a 4dr sedan anyway. I'd rather buy a station wagon/CUV or whatever they're calling them today because they're so much more versatile than a sedan with a 14CuFt trunk. The Taurus there's a sexy car!

    Actually I drive a Ford Freestyle and Honda Fit, so I can officially bash both companies :P
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Actually I used to have a Taurus (1987) and it stranded me more than once.
This discussion has been closed.