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
I would think the new LEDs would make this a non argument.
The Corona was not a failure...it was the car that put Toyota on the map in the U.S. in the mid-1960s. I don't know why Toyota dropped that nameplate, but a poor public image was not the reason, as was the case with far too many GM nameplates. Same with Cressida.
The Celica and MR2 were dropped because of a vanishing market - much like the Camaro, Firebird and (soon) Monte Carlo. Those nameplates did not have a bad public image when they were dropped.
Toyopet, yes, that one was a failure, and Toyota was wise to drop it.
Having had one in the fleet and a couple of friends with them, I beg to differ. Two of them swore of Japanese cars until very recently, and one got a Prius.
but a poor public image was not the reason, as was the case with far too many GM nameplates
As opposed to names that have been around since the earth cooled, like the Grand Prix or Bonneville. I really don't think public image has a whole lot to do with it, I think it is an American way of thinking that when you come out with something new, it needs a new name. I just think the whole expired nameplate argument is silly.
Corvette and Mustang must not be American.
Considering that the Corona - along with the Corolla - enabled Toyota to gain a foothold in the new car market and laid the groundwork for Toyota's subsequent growth, the majority of buyers did not share your experience.
I'm glad you liked your Contour - I always thought that it had lots of potential, although you dodged a major bullet by ordering the manual tranny - but the bottom line is that too many people did not share your experience.
Which is why the Accord and Camry are still selling well, and why Contour sales declined and the model was discontinued in this country. And I say this as a Ford fan.
lilengineerboy: As opposed to names that have been around since the earth cooled, like the Grand Prix or Bonneville.
The Honda Civic has been around for 33 years in the United States - since 1974. The Honda Accord debuted in 1976, or 31 years ago.
The Corolla came out in 1966 in Japan, and debuted in 1968 in this country. The Camry debuted in 1980 in Japan as the Celica Camry, and then debuted as a separate model in 1983 in the U.S.
The Pontiac Bonneville debuted as a special model, available only as a convertible, in 1957, and became a full-line model in 1959. The Pontiac Grand Prix debuted in 1962.
Realistically, for most buyers today (especially those 30 and under), 1957 and 1962 are not that much farther back in time than 1968 or even 1974.
lilengineerboy: I really don't think public image has a whole lot to do with it, I think it is an American way of thinking that when you come out with something new, it needs a new name. I just think the whole expired nameplate argument is silly.
As someone who was there...naming a car the Vega by 1978, or the Citation by 1986, would have made only a little more sense than naming a car the "Bin Laden Special" or "Manson DeLuxe" today.
Those names were seriously tarnished within a few years, objects of both jokes and derision.
Which is why the Accord and Camry are still selling well, and why Contour sales declined and the model was discontinued in this country. And I say this as a Ford fan.
I don't think so. Mine was a 1996, it had a very upscale feel to it, leather interior and heavily bolstered seats that were very supportive. The SE model had a sport suspension that was actually, well, sporty. It even had these cute little lights that illuminate the door handle pulls.
I think the reason it got canned is they started to cheapen the vehicle. In '98 they "refreshened" the vehicle and took out the clock/trip computer, the little door lights, re-designed the dash and left a bunch of blanks in it, and they never addressed a tiny back seat.
I think the front seats were too agressive for fat-a** Americans to fit in (who spec'd those, although in my case it was the main selling point of the car), and the tiny back seats were what killed it.
I still don't buy the whole expired nameplate thing. A new Accord has nothing to do with my Accord, which is about the size of a new Civic. Then, when Ford renames the 500 the Taurus (keeping the old name) everyone freaks out. Its all silliness if you ask me (eh or even if you didn't
The problems were subpar reliability, and a cramped back seat. A co-worker had a maroon, top-of-the-line 1996 model with the five-speed, and it was a nice car. But too many people had trouble with them, especially with the automatic transmissions.
If Ford had done what Toyota does - work to fix the problems, and capitalize on the good points - the car would still be sold today.
lilengineerboy: I still don't buy the whole expired nameplate thing. A new Accord has nothing to do with my Accord, which is about the size of a new Civic.
The growth has occurred slowly, over several generations. Because Honda has kept the car current, it has never become "stale." Honda has also never changed the market orientation of the car - it is a step up from a Civic. Mention "Accord," and people not only know that it is a Honda, but what type of car it is.
lilengineerboy: Then, when Ford renames the 500 the Taurus (keeping the old name) everyone freaks out. Its all silliness if you ask me (eh or even if you didn't ).
It should have been Taurus from day one.
It should have been Taurus from day one.
I totally agree, what was that clowning around stuff? The Ford 500 was from before I was born. The Fairlane and Galaxy 500s were from the early 60s, so anyone younger than about 50-something wouldn't even remember it. Also, it was the Galaxy 500, not just the 500.
LOL yeah we were just discussing name recognition and how companies choose to name their stuff.
That 500 moniker was another one of Bill Ford's specials. I would have liked to see him be successful but it was not to be. Current Ford management understands what it's up against better. The concern is that it may be too late.
I think it is both. And it is wrong to blame workers for either (they have some role in quality of vehicle but only when it comes to their individual responsibility). Assembly workers certainly don't take decision in the design aspects. They are expected to only assemble to specifications.
The tail lamp bulb argument wasn't necessarily to discuss longevity of the bulb(s), but to bring home a point that it is one of many obvious short cuts that some products compared to others. And to be considered a benchmark, or to challenge those that are, that is not a good idea.
EXTENDED COVERAGE PROGRAM
07N10 Certain 2005 through 2007 FWD & AWD Ford Five Hundred, Freestyle & Mercury Montego Vehicles - Rear Brake Wear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank M. Ligon
Director
Service Engineering Operations
Ford Customer Service Division
Ford Motor Company
P.O. Box 1904
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
July 3, 2007
TO: All U.S. Ford and Lincoln Mercury Dealers
SUBJECT: Customer Satisfaction Program 07N10
Certain 2005 through 2007 FWD & AWD Ford Five Hundred, Freestyle & Mercury Montego Vehicles - Rear Brake Wear
PROGRAM TERMS
This program extends the warranty coverage of the rear brake pads to 3 years of service or 36,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, whichever occurs first. If a vehicle has already accumulated more than 36,000 miles, this coverage will last until December 31, 2007. This program provides one-time replacement coverage, and is automatically transferred to subsequent owners.
VEHICLES COVERED BY THIS PROGRAM
Certain 2005 through 2007 Model Year Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego FWD & AWD and Ford Freestyle FWD vehicles built at the Chicago Assembly Plant from Job #1 2005 through November 28, 2006.
Certain 2005 through 2007 Model Year Ford Freestyle AWD Vehicles built at the Chicago Assembly Plant from Job #1 2005 through Job Last 2007.
Affected vehicles are identified in OASIS.
REASON FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COVERAGE
Some of the affected vehicles may have had direct exposure to moisture for an extended period that may have caused the pads to “swell” and create a slight drag condition. Low levels of brake drag might not be noticed by a customer, but could lead to premature brake pad wear and excessive brake dust.
SERVICE ACTION
2005 through 2007 FWD and AWD Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego & FWD Freestyle Vehicles
If an affected vehicle experiences the condition of rear brake pad premature wear (below 3mm thickness), dealers are to replace the rear brake pads and if necessary, turn or replace the rear rotors, if they are below the thickness specification. This service will be performed on affected vehicles at no charge to the vehicle owner.
2005 through 2007 AWD Freestyle Vehicles
Due to the configuration of the braking system on AWD Freestyle vehicles the front brake pads must be replaced when rear brake pads are replaced. Therefore, this program will allow replacement of front brake pads, but only if the rear brake pads require replacement during the same visit.
If an affected AWD Freestyle experiences the condition of rear brake pad premature wear (below 3mm thickness), dealers are to replace the front and rear brake pads and if necessary, turn or replace the rotors, if they are below the thickness specification. This service will be performed on affected vehicles at no charge to the vehicle owner.
NOTE: Brake pad inspection is part of normal maintenance and is not covered as part of this program. If the vehicle is within this extended time and mileage coverage and the owner experiences a brake system symptom or during a normal maintenance inspection (brakes every 15,000 miles or more often, per the Scheduled Maintenance Guide) the vehicle's rear brake pads are found to have less than 3 millimeters (0.118 inch) of lining material, then Ford Motor Company will cover the cost of replacing the rear brake pads.
OWNER NOTIFICATION MAILING SCHEDULE
Mailing will begin July 9, 2007.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Administrative Information
Attachment II: Labor Allowances and Parts Ordering Information
Attachment III: Technical Information
Customer Notification Letter
QUESTIONS & ASSISTANCE
Special Service Support Center (Dealer Only) . .1-800-325-5621
"Every Bulb"? Wow!!! Your Accord is a candidate for Ripley's Believe It or Not. That is definitely a world record.
Have had 3 Accords. 86, 95 and 98. Had the 86 from 1986 till 2000 and 247K miles. Never replaced any bulbs or power window controllers or master on any of these Accords. Did replace sealed-beam pop-up headlights from time-to-time on the 86. Did replace one bulb in the headlight of the 95.
Don't know about 2007 model cars, but do believe that American brand car makers in past used cheaper less reliable parts and components to cut costs than did manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota.
Another factor is I tend to get moisture in the lenses. Last time I replaced my DRL bulb, I had to empty about an inch of water that found its way in the light assembly.
That makes a nice urban myth. Doubt there's any gravitas to the story.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Dealers usually make a huge profit on replacement parts. In most cases, for a car which is three or more years old, you can find lower cost alternative parts on the aftermarket websites.
You are always going to find the odd item which is disproportionally priced - usually those are items which are manufactured in very small quantities and thus cost more per item to make and sell.
I just bought some replacement headlights for my TCH to increase the wattage from 65 to 100 and they were $24 for a pair. Don't know what the OEM bulbs cost, but $24 is a reasonable price for what I got.
PS Here is a site you might like Gary:
How to Buy American
1998 Accord: $53
1998 Escort: $65
Here is an interesting stat destination charge by big-6 (high to low)...
Ford: $725
GM: $685
Chrysler: $675
Nissan: $625
Toyota: $620
Honda: $595
No bulbs in 247k? I think you have the worlds record sir, not me. Its not Honda specific, my '89 Mitsubishi Galant would blow bulbs so regularly I would carry them with me to avoid fix it tickets.
Don't know about 2007 model cars, but do believe that American brand car makers in past used cheaper less reliable parts and components to cut costs than did manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota.
I would compare the cost of the $75 main relay (which activates the fuel pump-no gas, you are on a hook) I have to replace every 80k in Hondas to the one in the Contour, but I have never had to replace the one in the Contour. I know the cost of waterpumps is similar, and the Accord's brake job was $300 more than the Contour's.
As for brake jobs or whatever, you were simply taken for a ride. But then, I have paid for brake job only twice in that Accord (once at 90K for front pads and once at 132K for rear pads). It wasn't big enough amount for me to remember how much I paid.
With the list of replacements you claim to have performed on Accord, as someone else suggested, your car qualifies for Ripley's Believe it or not. How many miles did you put on that car?
It was a labor cost to replace rotors, since replacing the rotors on 1990-1995 Accords requires disassembly of the front suspension so the rotor can be pressed off the hub assembly. Averaged over the car's life, it wasn't that outrageous an expense and while I was surprised, I wasn't terribly upset about it, but it was $300 more than the Contour's brake job.
With the list of replacements you claim to have performed on Accord, as someone else suggested, your car qualifies for Ripley's Believe it or not. How many miles did you put on that car?
The car (Accord EX)currently has (as of this weekend)145k, but its a 1993. I don't feel like its fair to count repairs on a car over 10 years old, so all of these repairs, and the clutch master cylinder, 2 distributors, radiator and a starter were prior to 2003.
Since then (so beyond 10 years old), it has had a counterbalance shaft seal failure (which requires a timing belt service @ $700 to repair), a master cylinder, and its second main relay. Oh, and new tie rods and upper control arms and sway bar end links. It got shocks too but jeez, thats a wear item.
The car also had to be repainted at about 6 years old when the clear coat failed, but it lived in a coastal California town so we will give it the benefit of the doubt, although the only other car there was a paint issue with was an 89 Caravan.
This is in addition to regular maintenance (plugs, wires, coolant flushes, t-stat, oil changes).
Honestly, I consider light bulbs, brake pads, wiper blades, shocks, tires and batteries as wear items, I think thats why I thought the light bulb argument was ridiculous (although the brakes sucked because they were so difficult to replace).
Its going in tomorrow because the dealer that replaced the seals seems to be having trouble stopping the leaks, this will be the 3rd visit. I think overall the car has been fine, its fun to drive and gets good mileage. I just wasn't very impressed with the maintenance and repair costs overall.
My example of the tail Light lens from a 1978 Accord was $73 and the 1986 Escort lens was $19. Both direct from the dealers. Another good reason to be turned off by Japanese cars many years ago. The auto parts stores did not carry many Honda parts in the 1980s & 1990s. They still don't have them for the older cars at APW.
The Contour did a number of track events so the pads were switched out for the track vs the street. I don't think it did a whole lot of appreciable wear to the aftermarket rotors. I did manage to kill a rotor when I lost a caliper though.
I helped a buddy do a brake job on a Chevy Prism (Toyota Corolla) last weekend and didn't see anything particularly junky about it, it looked like it had about the same set up as the Contour in the front, and the rear drums were about as generic as they come. I dislike rear drums in general, however.
Light weight is not necessarily synonomous with cheap, or poorly engineered. Often it's quite the opposite.
And for awhile in the 1990s, virtually every manufacturer except for the high-end European marques was having trouble with warping rotors.
How else do you think Rover gets a nearly 6,000 lbs SUV to stop in 113 feet from 60 mph.
I don't think so. Mine was a 1996, it had a very upscale feel to it, leather interior and heavily bolstered seats that were very supportive. The SE model had a sport suspension that was actually, well, sporty. It even had these cute little lights that illuminate the door handle pulls.
I think the reason it got canned is they started to cheapen the vehicle. In '98 they "refreshened" the vehicle and took out the clock/trip computer, the little door lights, re-designed the dash and left a bunch of blanks in it, and they never addressed a tiny back seat.
I think the front seats were too agressive for fat-a** Americans to fit in (who spec'd those, although in my case it was the main selling point of the car), and the tiny back seats were what killed it.
Well maybe the reason for Ford not making the Contours bacstseat roomier was because maybe Ford thought if they did that than Contour sales would eat into Tarus sales at that time and The Tarus was still a good selling car at that time in 1998 I think even with the very contriversal 1996 redesign of it.
Man, next you are going to tell me that those 740 treadwear tires that will last though an ice age don't stop or corner as well as those overpriced ones that say sport and have a H, V or Z stamped on them.
If you don't want to get dust on your wheels then take the wheels off and wax them with a good polymer based wax. Don't use Carnauba wax as it won't hold up to high temperatures as well. A couple coats of good wax and then the dust will barely stick to the wheels. Just wipe them down with a dry soft cloth once every few days and boom instantly clean wheels.
90K miles on front brake pads
132K miles on rear brake pads
The replaced brake pads now have 88K (front) and 46K (rear) miles on them. Not bad.
As for brake dust...
150 feet of stopping distance from 60 mph is not good braking. I would call that barely adequate for a modern vehicle.
It looks like the 4X4 they tested has 4 wheel disks. The 2 wheel drive I test drove did not.
Check out April issue of Consumer Reports regarding reliability. There is a graph showing reliability from 1 to 10 years and the Japanese brands, so far, are more reliable than the American brands over time. Remains to be seen how the 2007 model year fares for Japanese vs American brands. We will know in about 5 years if American brands have caught up to American brands in reliability regarding model year 2007.
Also check out April issue regarding used vehicles to buy vs vehicles to avoid. Japanese brands fare much better than American brands according to Consumer Reports. Not many Japanese brands to avoid vs American brands when buying used. Lots of American models are to be avoided when buying used.