By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Actually, the '93 Civic we had before the '93 Accord only had a couple of issues. A radiator (its second at the time), unstoppable cancer (did they understand galvanized steel in Japan in the 90s?) and typical 10 year old Honda issues (main relay, every light bulb in the entire car going one at a time). Oh, and its second exhaust system. It was a DX w/o AC or a passenger side mirror but it got great fuel mileage.
My siblings each had Mercury Tracers in high school, a '91 and a '97. The stereo failed in the '91 and the radiator failed in the '97. The '91 was replaced by a 2000 Civic VE that had its oil pan replaced due to corrosion in 2005 or so (still learning about that whole galvanized thing apparently). Haven't heard that one yet. The '97 was replaced by a Mazda3 right when they came out, so far so good except for they use a very specialized oil filter apparently.
I think all of these cars where in the realm of acceptable.
The worst car I can remember was my folks K-car that had all kinds of motor issues; the motor was made by Mitsubishi (2.6 liter 4).
So Chrysler customers should be to blame for Chrysler's management's decision to use unreliable Mitsubishi motors? It's Chrysler that put those motor into THEIR vehicles with their nameplate on the car, not the Customer's decision.
Absolutely!!! Yet, I worked at a Dodge dealer in 1987, and you wouldn't believe how many people thought thet they would be more reliable than the Chrysler motor. That year, they started putting the 3 liter V-6 in the Caravan. Mitsu motor, BIG TIME POS. But, it was Japanese......
It is what it is.
Regards,
OW
What can I say? Garbage in, Garbage OUT! "Buy at your own risk" comes to mind.
Regards,
OW
when did the domestics start going to galvanized steel? I know I've seen late 90's domestics that were rusting. It's a very rare sight nowadays, with any brand, so it would actually come as a shock. I think the last new-ish car I saw that had serious rust was a 1996+ Taurus. I can't remember now if it was the '96-99 "Catfish" style or the cleaned-up 2000+. All I remember was that it was light blue, and it was rusting out big-time in the rocker panels and around the rear wheel well.
They don't salt the roads too badly in these parts (DC suburbs), so I don't think rust has been an issue, with a domestic at least, for years now. When I was out in Ohio last August though, I noticed more rusty late 90's cars. But then, I noticed more late 90's cars in general. Seems people hold onto their cars longer out there, whereas around these parts, I guess they're more likely to get traded in and then wholesaled outta here?
Oh, back in 1994, some friends of mine, a married couple, were looking for a new car. At the time, they had a 1978 Malibu with well over 200,000 miles on it, a 1976-77 AMC hornet wagon that was on its last legs at a relatively low 90K, and an '87 Sentra that was still doing okay...forget the mileage though. They wanted to get a new car to replace both the Malibu and the Hornet, and wanted something small and economical, but still nice. I recommended a Honda Civic to them. One of my friends, a die-hard domestic fan (who oddly, now drives a Nissan Maxima), actually got mad at me for recommending it! They got a nicely equipped EX sedan for about $16K. It was a nice car...at first. But by 1998 they were sick of it. I think it had about 80-90K miles on it, but the head gasket blew once, and when it blew the second time, that's when they got rid of it. It also had a/c problems somewhere along the line.
At least with this car though, when the head gasket went, the engine was salvageable. They just needed a new gasket. Although I wonder if the block or head might have warped just a bit, and that's what encouraged the second gasket to blow? Still, I guess it could have been worse. There's a guy at work with a Windstall, and when it blew, it pretty much took the engine with it. I think that one was about a $5,000 repair.
They sold the Honda to a dealer, without trading, and got $4,000 for it, which I think is pretty impressive for a car that was almost 5 model years old, with a blown head gasket. They bought a 1998 or 1999 Saturn S series, which I think they had been happy with, but the last time I saw them they had a 2005 or so Corolla.
I don't think I've ever seen an oil pan corrode. Especially on a newer car, that just seems really bad! What do they make them out of nowadays, anyway? Aluminum? I think that's what my 2000 Intrepid has. All I know is that back in the old days, you'd usually strip the drain plug before you'd strip the threads in the oil pan itself. But not anymore. I learned that from experience.
What Defines Brand?
GM, in particular, self-decimated its once-storied brands with commonization of styling in the '80s, driven mostly by the same kind of cost-saving rationalization its apparently clueless management board reportedly now considers for engines.
Think of all the best automotive brands, current or past. Almost without exception, characterful and sometimes idiosyncratic engines are central to the image. Honda and BMW are the current icons in this area -- and you're not going to catch Honda in any engine-development tie-ups anytime soon.
What about the contract vaunted Honda had with GM to supply a Honda-designed 3.5-liter V6 to GM for the Saturn Vue? Yeah, it happened. Many insiders at GM were outraged. And despite Honda's vacillating objective to supply engines to automakers endowed with less engine-design brilliance, both companies regretted that 1999 deal before the ink was dry.
Even BMW isn't lily-white in this area. For example, in 2004 it launched a new four-cylinder engine jointly manufactured with France's PSA Peugeot Citroen. That engine can be found today in BMW's Mini and countless PSA commodity cars. The first Mini four-cylinder engine was developed and built by Chrysler, for heaven's sake.
Engine as Brand
And that's the problem. "Bandwidth," these days, often is code for "shareholder value."
And because unique and distinctive engines are the best brand-reinforcing play automakers have left (nobody's going to slobber over a vehicle because of its intoxicating iPod interface), joining up to further erode the impact of the greatest remaining expression of mechanical identity is just plain misguided.
Cut the management. Cut the marketing. Cut the workers. Cut the factories. Cut the dividend.
But engine development is one cost of doing business both of these teetering companies had best find a way to leave alone.
Here is the article link
Desparation = Insanity
Regards,
OW
A transmission adjustment costs less replacing a failed transmission. And I can't remember whether Honda is still using mechanical valve adjusters. I don't remember having the valves adjusted on my Accord - I have to check my records. I do know that Honda was still using them in the 1990s.
Government protection can be a double-edged sword. Remember that the Japanese government agency charged to work with the auto industry initially discouraged Honda from making cars. The agency wanted it to stick with motorcycles.
Until fairly recently the French and Italian governements heavily protected their auto industries. Which has left them woefully unprepared to meet competitive challenges from foreign automakers. Check out the ratings in Top Gear or Car - French and Italian mass-market cars regularly bring up the bottom (with a few exceptions). They are also not noted for their reliability (which, admittedly, is less important in Europe than over here, but virtually guarantees their failure if they were to come to the U.S. market).
Fiat was virtually bankrupt a few years ago, until it entered into an agreement with GM, in which GM foolishly agreed to be on the hook for purchasing the entire company. When Fiat exercised that option, GM had to pay the company $4 billion to get out of it, which Fiat has used to fund its recovery.
lilengineerboy: The US government and lobbyists fight with the US auto industry place stronger restrictions on the US auto industry, and treat it like a red-headed step child.
This is true, but, on the other hand, any company, regardless of where it is based, must meet U.S. safety, emissions and fuel mileage regulations to sell vehicles here. These rules and regulations don't just apply to GM, Ford and Chrysler.
And it's not the U.S. government's fault that the domestics treated their passenger cars as the red-headed step children until recently, which left them woefully unprepared for sudden spikes in gasoline prices.
If memory serves me, Fiat, Renault, Peugeot & Citroen all tried selling cars here and were flops.
How about the farm bill mandating ethanol. Known to give lower mileage. Yet it gives the automakers a bye on producing REAL high mileage vehicles. Ethanol can not be shown to have saved us importing one barrel of oil.
Doesn't sound like that's keeping high mileage vehicles out of the US.
How about the fact that EPA and CARB have done everything possible to keep diesel cars off our highways under the guise of emissions. When diesel cars have much lower CO, HC & CO2 than gas equivalent cars. Don't you think that it is strange that over 50% of cars in the EU are diesel and less than 1% here. We would be using about 25% less oil in the USA if we had followed the EU in developing clean diesel and the cars to run on it.
Diesel vehicles produce about the same CO2 emissions per gallon consumed as gas engines, and about the same HC and CO emissions. Diesel engines produce about 40 MORE chemicals than that that can be considered harmful. If we simply lower the emissions standards so that "dirtier" diesel engines can be allowed into the US, then we'll just be regressing from 40 years of improving air quality. Is it really worth that? We have 15-17 million new vehicles being registered every year and you want them to be allowed to have lower emissions standards? Today's cars produce 1% of the emissions of a vehicle from 1970...I don't want that to INCREASE.
How about the fact that oil companies produce diesel from the same petroleum and that they'd probably make MORE money off of cruder diesel, which is currently selling for considerably MORE than gas around here.
The oil companies do not want to be stuck with a lot of worthless gasoline as they are in the EU. That is a pretty good incentive to keep the proper flow going.
There are over 200 million registered vehicles in the United States, the vast majority of which run on gasoline. I can't imagine oil companies being stuck with "worthless gasoline" in this country for many years even if ALL vehicles new vehicles were offered as diesels. In Europe, diesels are very popular but they're far from the whole market...as a matter of fact, it's not even HALF the market over there.
Renault held the record for best first-year sales for an import brand for about 30 years. Fiat, Renault, and Peugeot were relatively popular for many years. They sold cars here for decades before competition finally took them out. It's hard to call 30-40 years on the market "flops".
Today's cars from all four brands are much better and, in many cases, world class.
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide is the main cause for concern at the moment, and is the subject of international agreements to try to reduce its output. Carbon dioxide is causing global warming; this is a known fact. Carbon dioxide is produced by any burning of fossil fuels, and is caused by production of electricity by most current powerstations; this means that electric cars cause carbon dioxide emissions too. Carbon dioxide does not cause any health issues.
Carbon dioxide emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption, and as diesel cars use 30 to 40% less fuel, they emit 30 to 40% less carbon dioxide than petrol cars. Natural gas and LPG cars are actually quite fuel inefficient, if otherwise cleaner burning, and so produce more CO2 than a diesel.
Although CO2 emissions are not directly harmful to us, they are changing our climate. The legacy these emissions will leave will be felt by every generation after us.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a poison. It has no smell, but can kill you without you realising what is happening. Carbon monoxide is the reason why you should not run you car engine (petrol) in a confined space. Diesel engines produce virtually no carbon monoxide, a petrol engine produces enough to kill you. The main remedy to carbon monoxide emissions of petrol engines has been the introduction of catalytic converters, however there are problems with cats:
They don't work until they are hot, maybe 10 or 15 minutes of driving. As most car journeys only last 10 or 15 minutes, the cat is not terribly effective.
They increase fuel consumption.
They are easily poisoned and stop working.
They are easily mechanically damaged.
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen is the main constituent of the air that we breathe. When it is exposed to high pressures and temperatures it combines with oxygen in the air to form nitrous oxides. The nitrous oxides then combine with low level ozone to form smog. Because of the way a diesel engine works, with an excess of air inside the engine (rather than "just enough" as in a petrol engine, which is what causes CO emissions), nitrous oxides are more likely to be formed. However tests of actual cars reveal that whilst emissions of NOx are higher in a new diesel than a new petrol car, that by 50,000 miles or so they are the same, and after that the petrol engine produces more than the diesel. Therefore over the life cycle of the car, petrol and diesel engine emissions of nitrous oxides are similar. Emissions of nitrous oxides can be effectively reduced in both petrol and diesel cars by use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). EGR reduces the combustion temperature to below the point where nitrogen effectively burns.
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons include chemicals such as benzene. Benzene is an extremely carcinogen chemical, and has been declared unsafe by the World Health Organisation in any concentration. Hydrocarbon emissions are contained in petrol engine emissions much more than in diesel engine emissions. Benzene is also present in the fumes which can be smelt when filling up with petrol at a service station, this is not a problem with diesel.
To my way of thinking we would be better off using 30-40% less fossil fuel. That is just my opinion. We have been fed a lot of false ideas in this country.
Yes. Please read what I wrote. PER GALLON CONSUMED. This states it very clearly.
Therefore over the life cycle of the car, petrol and diesel engine emissions of nitrous oxides are similar.
This is a guess on the author's part. Diesel engine typically live much longer than gasoline engines, so my guess would be the other way around...but I'm defering to the author's "similar" concept to be nice.
And this article, which I had read before, is greatly slanted in favor of diesels, ignoring or understating the downsides.
I have no figures only memories. I bought my son a Fiat Spyder and cannot remember any vehicle costing me more to keep running. I had one friend with LeCar and he hated it. I do remember a few diesel Peugeots a long time ago. And I may have seen a couple of the upside down bathtub looking Citroens over my life time. I must have missed when any of them were big sellers. I was in Alaska most of the 1970s if that was their heyday.
So, since I had the Prelude about 180K and the Legend about 165K (the two best cars I ever owned, bar none) they each had a "major" at 75K and 150K...
I personally don't think the recommended service interval was the problem with that Metric transmission - mine failed at 18,000 miles in my Olds 442, and I am a believer in 30,000 mile interval transmission services. But I never made it that far.
I had it replaced with a Turbohydramatic 350 that lasted the rest of its life.
I had it replaced with a Turbohydramatic 350 that lasted the rest of its life.
Oh I agree, it wasn't a good transmission, but I still wonder if that optimistic service interval had something to do with some of them failing? Now with our 1980 Malibu, we probably went overboard with servicing. Mom bought that car new, and Granddad would take it to the tranny shop where his brother-in-law worked, and get it serviced once per year. So it was actually getting it maybe every 10-13,000 miles. This Malibu just had the 229 V-6 though, so maybe that engine just wasn't strong enough to hurt the tranny? The 305 would stress it more, no doubt.
Oddly, the only GM tranny I had fail on me WAS a THM350! I can't really blame GM though, as that car, an '82 Cutlass Supreme, was 11 years old when I bought it, had 61,000 miles on it, and I only paid $800 for it. Soon after I bought it, the tranny started shifting funny. It would hold the gears too long and just didn't like to upshift. I took it to a local shop that my mechanic recommended, and he said that he could get it working right again for about $150, but couldn't guarantee how long it would last, and that it would probably start acting up again within a year. I think basically, the innards were wearing out and all those metal shavings and junk were clogging up the filter. Well a complete rebuild was $650-700, and I figured I was going to keep that car a long, long time, so I sprung for the rebuild.
But who knows? I might have been able to just get by with having it all cleaned out, and it might have done just fine for the rest of that car's life with me. All 12,000 miles of it. The 231 V-6 pretty much self-destructed at 73K miles less than a year later. Lost all oil pressure. We got it running again, but it wasn't long for this world. It was still running when I sold it for $400, though.
FWIW, I have a 1979 Nova brochure too. The Nova still used the more durable THM350, even with the straight-six. Its brochure called for 60,000 mile intervals. I wonder what GM did with the THM200C that they thought it could go longer than the THM350 without servicing? And what did they care, I guess, since either one was probably out of warranty after 12,000 miles back then! :sick:
On 26 August, 1981 I purchased a new 1981 Plymouth Sapporo from Clay Bohn Chrysler in Gulfport Mississippi. It had the 2.6 Mitsu engine. Mine was excellent. It far outperformed similar little cars of the time. The only issue the engine had was a need for adjusting the idle rpm one time. I've heard the horror stories concerning that engine and I am bewildered. My experience seems to have "varied".
The Renault Dauphine actually knocked VW out of the number-one spot for sales of imports for one or two months in either 1958 or 1959. After the cars began falling apart after a year or two of driving, sales nosedived, and the company never really recovered. The AMC-Renault Alliance sold well in 1983 and 1984, but once it began falling apart, its sales tanked, too, and Renault sold its interest in AMC as fast as it could.
I don't know if one could ever say that Fiat, Renault or Peugeot were ever "relatively popular" in the U.S. (aside from Renault's initial success in 1958-59). They sold a small number of cars to people who wanted something different, but after the late 1950s were never a threat to VW, let alone the domestics.
And once the Japanese came on strong in the mid-1970s, they sent all of the lower-priced European brands - except VW - scurrying home with their tails between their legs, and even VW has never really replicated the success it enjoyed in the 1960s.
Fiat tube
He probably did a commute to Dayton. I recall it being towed home often. I recall seeing it sitting along the highway between home and Dayton. I remember thinking about how poor those foreign cars must be. It was showing rust after a couple of years from the salt used on the roads in winter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
To me, a flop is Daihatsu or Sterling.
Isn't that the company making the Xb and Xc for Toyota?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You know that 10 or so years ago, the Contour/Mystique rebadge twins were the "new kind of American car" that were going to compete with the Accord and Camry?!
They were too small to compete with Accord and Camry. The backseat was nothing like the Accord's, but it was much more driver's car for the money. When I got mine, it was a year old and 10k for a super loaded SE with leather and a moonroof. The Accord in that range was a DX w/o a CD player or anti-lock bakes, older with more miles. I still miss my Contour.
So Chrysler customers should be to blame for Chrysler's management's decision to use unreliable Mitsubishi motors?
If you can find where I said that, I will buy a used Neon. :P
The 2.0 liter Mitsubishi engine in my Galant was fantastic, as was the 3.0 liter in my folks' Grand Caravan was great too. The K-car, not so much the great engine, nor my friend's Mitsubishi Starion.
I think the idea was good, the execution was bad. After years and years, people finally realized they were getting GM quality in their Saturns, and that just didn't win repeat customers.
I think maybe they need to make a new company, but one that has independence from GM, and just drop the dead weight. I know I'm not the only one that's sworn off one or all 3 of the Big 3 due to a previous :lemon: experience. Granted, the new company would be found guilty by association, but if GM could show they hired all new managers, all new designers, all new engineers, and basically prove it is a new company from the ground up, I think some people might "buy" it.
I think the idea was good, the execution was bad. After years and years, people finally realized they were getting GM quality in their Saturns, and that just didn't win repeat customers.
GM wasn't willing to invest what it needed to for the brand to thrive, that is a constant issue for GM, 7 brands instead of 3 or 4 spreads their resources to thin. They let it die on the vine (like Ford with the Taurus).
That's not what the Ford marketing department said :P . I do remember reading articles that these new "more compact" cars (than a Taurus, for example) were going head to head against the Honda and Toyota mid-sizers. I know the mid-90's Accord was pretty compact - I don't think it was bigger than the Contour, was it? In any event, clearly those cars did not meet their goal of providing significant competition for something like the Accord.
Yeha, I don't know. I think the Accord was pretty much the coolest thing out there from '86-93, and then pretty much lost its mojo, yet to be regained. I think the '03-07 is slightly less apnea inducing than the Camry, but the '08 says Avalon (which I am not old enough to drive), Taurus (ditto) and for the coupe fans, 90s Thunderbird/Monte Carlo. The world may or may not agree with me, I don't really care.
I thought my Contour was cheap and fun to drive. I do regret not getting a Diamond Star AWD of the same era or earlier, but oh well, I definitely didn't have the buyer's remorse with the '96 Contour I seem to have with the '07 Accord.
It caught me eye...I remeber when US cars did the same for me....
Regards,
OW
The U.S. market is headed away from large pickups and SUVs, turning a trend towards largeness that lasted well more than a decade. The new course is taking consumers straight into the arms of the so-called "second tier" Asian automakers - Japan's Subaru and Suzuki and South Korea's Hyundai and Kia.
More Pressure for the Detroit 3
Regards,
OW
I'm just not sure Honda hit the bullseye in going with a BIG heavy 3.5 V6 that isn't more powerful than anyone elses 3.5 V6. I'm sure it's a great engine, but perhaps too powerful for front wheel drive?
Now if they could tweak that 3.5 V6 into putting out 300 HP with AWD or RWD, that would be something, Acura TL anyone?
I think coupes actually made more sense back in the old days, maybe up until around the late 80's. With older 4-door cars, the doors were actually pretty small, even with bigger cars. I'd imagine that the doors on my uncle's '03 Corolla 4-door are actually bigger than the doors on my Grandma's old '85 LeSabre! When you put the seat all the way back, with most 4 door cars you're actually behind the B-pillar, too. So with those older cars, while the big doors on a 2-door could be cumbersome, I still found them easier to get into and out of than a 4-door. At least, as the driver! Now the back seat could be pretty bad, especially when they had the bad habit, like on my '76 LeMans, of slanting the B-pillar forward.
As for the Accord coupe, I kinda like it, but it really doesn't excite me any more than the sedan does. I think one reason might be that in the old days, coupes tended to be more rakish and stylish than sedans, but today, most 4-doors are pretty sleek too. The Accord coupe is also pretty cramped in the back seat...I'd say it puts space efficiency back a good 30 years or more.
Once hardtop body styles went away, I think the coupe started losing its magic for me, as well.
I think the size of the door isn't the issue, its the ingress/egress that is important. A couple of examples are the Mazda MPV of the 90s vs the Dodge Caravan of the same era. The Mazda had convention style, but oversize rear doors so the opening was bigger, but only if you could open the door the entire arc of its travel. Otherwise, it was more inhibiting. The Caravan door opening wasn't necessarily larger, but you could get the full opening even if there was a car parked next to you.
My uncle's CDV, with its huge doors, was much harder to get in and out of in the garage than my aunt's Malibu wagon.
Isn't that the truth. Thankfully, my youngest is in a booster seat, so that is easy. But those infant car seats are a major PIA.
I learned my lesson on infant car seats and 2 door coupes when my wife and I were in college long before we were married with our own kids. One of my wife's class mates had a baby and my wife (girlfriend at the time) would babysit for her friend once in a while. My wife had a '94 Probe at the time. Putting a baby seat in the back seat of a Ford Probe required you to be a contortionist, which was hard to do at 20 years old, let alone mid 30's.
When my wife became pregnant we immediately got rid of the Probe and haven't had a 2 door since.
The current car seats are even worse than the ones we used. With all the extra tie downs and clamps, it requires patience and dexterity to install those damn things.
Yeah, no kidding. But now days you can't even leave your kids unattended long enough to put your credit card in the gas pump before your accused of child endangerment
LOL...I was thinking of that the other day when I was watching an episode of "The Waltons" (a guilty pleasure of mine
My, how times have changed. Oh well, at least the mother gave them hell when they got home. And made Mary-Ellen memorize 15 Bible verses because she was wearing lipstick and her dress came above the ankle. :shades:
Actually, one fond memory of my childhood was riding in the back of a pickup truck. I'd imagine it's illegal these days. Last time I did it was about 4 years ago. A friend and I took my grandmother's dog out for a walk, and walked her too far. Her hind legs gave out and she just couldn't walk. So I ran back, got the truck, and drove back. Put the dog in the back of the truck and sat with her, while my friend drove us back. But that one wasn't exactly a fond memory, what with a dog that was just a little puppy not that long ago, it seems, suddenly showing her old age like that.
Pennsylvania made it illegal to do this about seven years ago. Given that the Keystone State is usually one of the last states to do anything, I'd be surprised if it's legal anywhere today.
andre1969: Oh well, at least the mother gave them hell when they got home. And made Mary-Ellen memorize 15 Bible verses because she was wearing lipstick and her dress came above the ankle.
In real life the actress who play Mary-Ellen posed for Playboy. Poor Mama Walton would have either had a coronary, or been driven to sample the Baldwin sisters' "recipe" after hearing about that one...
Children under 12 are not allowed in the bed of a pickup. 13? sure no problem as well as anything after that. Who knows why. It's our government at work here in the 50th state.
Isn't that the company making the Xb and Xc for Toyota?
No, Toyota makes the xB (Toyota Bb) as well as the xD and tC (both designed to be Scions from the begining.
Toyota does own most of Daihatsu and they do swap a few models, just not these.