Headrests are the "new" thing in safety testing. If you look at which cars did better, most them are recent redesign. I'm sure the 08 Accord will have head restraints that are as "active" as anyone else. Makes me wonder though, if some safety devices are worth the money spent on research, design, and testing. Not saying head restraints, in particular, are not worth it. Just how far is too far, in the name of Safety?
I drove one on a couple hundred mile trip. It was a rental with less than 1000 miles on it. My only complaint is the drivers seat. It didn't feel comfortable from the first minute. It felt like it was ejecting me off the front of it. It was 8 way power and there was no way to make it comfortable at any time in the 4-5 hours I drove it. Not centered on steer wheel either. The bad seats ruined an otherwise good car. I checked into them on web later and saw they are very affordable. The model I drove had Light grey leather, sunroof and was well equipped. It had about everything my Riv has and it was priced about $25k new. The 3300 engine was great. It could get good mileage but rentals never come with a full tank to check. My guess is about 29 hwy, about the same as my Riv. It would be a great car with the seats redesigned.
The problem with the Sonata is that it is an almost as good car, yet net cost to own is about the same as buying your Accord or Camry, considering trade-in. So really, if you paid a couple thousand more for a car you really liked more, then get it back come resale time, the brand X is not too much of a cost saver, nor the smartest buy. By far, the Sonata is not a worse choice, and it is roomy inside. IMHO, it is an almost there car. Steering compared to Accord, is not as good. Cornering is, not as good. The engine is good, but really, Honda and Toyota V6 are pretty awesome. The warranty is better than all other makes, including GM. I think the Aura, and the New Malibu will be closer competition to the Accord and Camry, though a Sonata is not a worse choice of all cars, and the choice if warranty is your thing. And Hyundai keeps getting better as the years go by. Loren
agree - the Aura/Malibu are forecasted by folks that are in the industry to be the next 'mid-size' thing in the next few years - with the 3.6. Enthusiast mags rave about the XR. It will be interesting to see if the consumer is willing to pay closer to sticker (much like the Camcords) if this proves out - or is the autobuyer simply going to turn away because they 'expect' a good size rebate on a Chevy. Kind of the same problem that Hyundai has had with the Sonata.
My friend who has had 3 hondas and 1 toyota told me to avoid toyotas. He's back with honda. He told me toyota is a marketing focused company and honda is an engineering focused company. He says It shows in their cars after 3-4 years. His toyota was an avalon he bought new.
What still pushes me away from even the honda. With nearly 3000 of gm card earnings I contacted my nearby big city honda dealer. They were willing to take $1100 off sticker on an accord. I went to chevy dealer and they offered me a fair trade-in value and started at dealer invoice on an Impala or Monte Carlo or Malibu. Throw in 1500 rebates and the gm card earnings and the V6 Impala rolls off the lot for $7000 to 9000 less than a V6 LX Auto Accord. The argument on behalf of spending the $9000 extra is that I get to pay more insurance premiums to support the higher cost to fix and higher resale value for the honda? I also get to pay $300 more sales tax at purchase and the excise tax each year on $4500 more car. The honda warranty is shorter and the US trade defecit grows too. I don't see the light. Chevy was recently rated at 232 problems per 1000 vehicles in the first 3 years of ownership (J D Power). The average of all Japanese brands was 235 problems per 1000 vehicles. Honda was at around 227 problems. that was before GM extwnded it's warranty. The Honda is certainly not more attractive or efficient than the Chevy. I don't see the light for Honda. Maybe it's softness of the interior door panel at some spot you wouldn't touch anyway unless you were checking for it.
Your friend is right. The Hondas seem more refined and better built than the Toyotas I have driven. But for 7 to 9 k difference the Chevy seems a better buy for you. You could consider one used if the warranty transfers.
It all depends on how much Quality and Refinement are worth, to you. I have become spoiled by Accord Quality (since 91), and would find it very difficult to settle for something less. The solid, stable feeling at all speeds, great ergonomics, and the way everything works like it's supposed to, inspires confidence. The more I drive it, the more I like it. The car just doesn't seem to age as fast as other cars. I drove an 06 Impala for two weeks and it didn't seem to be held together as well as my 03 Accord even though the Impala had less than half the miles on the odo (15k vs. 30k). I plan to keep the Accord for at least 10 years, so I want a car that will still be a pleasure to drive for that long. I can see how the considerable price difference can make someone think long and hard about "is it worth that much more?" To me, it is.
Well said,Elroy. That's why I personally drive Accords. If a car satisfies you,you will keep it longer and the fewer cars you have in your lifetime,the more money you will have. But hey,thats just me. I'm sure Dave will make the right call,for Dave.
What still pushes me away from even the honda. With nearly 3000 of gm card earnings I contacted my nearby big city honda dealer. They were willing to take $1100 off sticker on an accord.
You apparently made the right chocie for you, especially if that is the only Honda dealer in your area. They offered you $1,100 off of sticker, when everyone reporting on Edmunds (in the Accord prices paid forum) is paying $1,000 or more UNDER INVOICE! I mean EX-V6 loaded Accords for less than $24k, around $25k with NAVI. That's $5k off sticker.
That dealer sounds like bad news. Enjoy your new Chevy, dave.
elroy and dave - how long you generally keep a car will largely determine if it is actually more or less expensive - cheaper to buy new will always equal less value later. I challenge you to compare the value of that Accord in 3 or 4 years vs. the value of that Malibu, relative to the amount of money you think you saved buying the cheaper car. That difference BTW is right at about 5 grand for 'comparable' 2003 models (trade-in values). The Accord sells for more because IT IS WORTH more if for no other reason than that is what people pay for them, and is directly relative to how much more it continues to be worth as the years pass. It is really more expensive to own? Maybe, maybe not.
Captain2, If you look at Edmunds true cost to own, it is the Accord depreciates more than the Impala in all of the 2nd thru 5th years, by small amounts. The Impala loses just over 7000 and the Accord loses 5000 in the first year. Accord is winner at the end of 5 years by a small amount that is left from the first year 2000 advantage. Percentage retained is in Accord's advantage but by an even smaller margin. Of course, this is based on MSRP. I just did some research on the LaCrosse by looking at MSRP vs Edmunds trade-in value in one and two years later. The Lacrosse loses 7450 the first year and 1770 in the second year. It probably continues to lose 1700 per year in the 3rd through 9th years. This ends up with a 3010 trade in value after 9 years. About right for a 9 yr old Buick. The only bad year is the first one. That first year can be counteracted by: 1. negotiating 1000-2000 off MSRP 2. a 1250 rebate 3. GM card earnings These 3 things can cut that 7450 first year hit in half or more. It's not hard to see these making the LaCrosse comparable or even less than the Accord in depreciation in the first year. In the 2nd thru 9th years, the Lacrosse is listed as less depreciating than the Honda. I believe the Malibu story will be similar. However,: The Accord will be more expensive to insure every year. The Accord warranty will run out sooner. The Accord will have higher excise tax each year in my state. The more expensive car has to get the higher sales tax bill at purchase. The more expensive car will cause the payment of more interest on the car loan. My friend gets 23-25 mpg in his V6 auto Accord except when he goes on a long trip, so I don't see any potential for gas savings for the Honda. I wouldn't expect the Accord tires or brakes to cost less than those for Malibu or Lacrosse. I saw for myself and I don't agree with the depreciation info that Honda feeds us in tv commercials. The Malibu depreciates less than the Impala or the Lacrosse because it gets better gas mileage and costs less initially.
dave, I had my 92 Accord (paid $17,000 new) for 12 years (140k miles). After I bought my 03 Accord, I sold the old one for $5,000. My cost of $1,000/year is probably more than some (especially those who buy used). The most important part is, I bought the car I really wanted, and liked the car enough to drive it for 12 years. I'm not going to buy a car I don't want, just for a lower cost/year.
Perhaps in the middle states the Impala is nearer to the Accord in resale value, but on the left coast, it ain't so close. At least around here, if you want a deal, you buy the domestic car used, like the Impala, and the Japan make, like the Accord new. The New Malibu, once out, may have a better chance for resale value and be seen less as a rental car, or corporate car. LaCrosse is more than likely to be best bought used as well. The current Malibu is not popular around here at all. Good luck on trade-in time. The initial cost is pretty much the same as the base Impala. Loren
Over the years, I have owned lots of GM cars and worked on lots of them as well. I have also owned three Honda Accords, and am currently looking to buy another one (or maybe an Acura TL) I also currently own a Honda CR-V and a Toyota Avalon.
GM has come a long way. But I cannot 'forgive and forget' the amount of time, money, and frustration I have had to deal with in the past. Sure, it's sorta fun to swap an alternator, starter, or radiator on a GM V8, and when my THM250 tranny exploded into pieces on my Grand Prix, it was sorta exciting. And when the 86 GrandAM threw a rod that destroyed both the engine and tranny at the same time, that was classic! ($2,800 USD). Part of my honeymoon was spent at a tranny shop when my Delta 88 decided to chew up and spit out one of it's clutches on it's THM-350 (true I was hauling a 1500lb trailer, but had a tranny cooler).
I worked on many of the delighful 'quad-4' engines with cracked heads/blown head gaskets, and helped diagnose all sorts of whacked out sensor problems, stalling and driveability issues or similar problems with mid-90s GM cars.
My parents gave up on GM in 1990, when they sold their GM stock and bought their first Honda Accord with the proceeds. They had always owned Buicks, but the build quality and design problems of their last buick were horrible.
Honda is not perfect. There are a couple weak points, like brake durability and cabin noise. But in terms of long-term reliability, I am sold.
At 175K miles, the only hard parts that my 90 Accord ever needed were brake rotors, CV-joints/axles/front wheel bearings. Period. Alternator? original. AC compressor? original. Yes, the tranny was starting to get a little rough, the struts were getting soft. BUT, the engine burned no oil, and there were NO rattles, squeaks, or leaks.
My 92 Accord, which I sold at 145K miles was just the same. Only parts were distributor (done free by Honda), top radiator tank ($130) and a vehicle speed sensor ($70). That's it.
I sold my 97 Accord at only 85K miles. The only part that failed on that car was the AC condensor due to a big rock. Everything else was untouched from the factory, except for rotors and brake pads.
I know that comparing mid-80s GM cars to mid-90s Hondas is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Personally, I have had to replace one GM engine, and three GM automatic transmissions. The single most expensive hard part I've ever bought for a Honda was a set of front axles and wheel bearings for around $250 for the set. I've never had to tow a Honda vehicle, or ever been stranded by one.
GM may have 'come a long way baby'. But the stories I hear from some of my co-workers who have to replace A/C compressors, alternators, and silly things like window regulators or AC control units tells me otherwise.
I sincerely wish you good luck with your Malibu. But the only way you'll ever see me in a GM showroom is if I win a Corvette in the church raffle. Cheers.
Regarding your friend who owned three Hondas and one Toyota and it back with Honda, I agree 100%.
I've owned four Hondas (90,92, and 97 Accord) and 02 CR-V and one 1997 Avalon.
My Avalon is roomy, smooth, and powerful, and has lots of nice toys.
BUT...build quality, compared to 97 Accord is not good. Car rattles...a lot! Had to fix coolant leak, tranny fluid leak, has lots of suspension noise, and even had to swap power steering rack. Toyota did several 'mid-year' engineering changes (so you end up buying the wrong brake pads half the time).
I do all my own car repairs and service. Honda tech manuals are great. Toyota's really, really, suck. Honda's factory service manuals give you every pinout, wire color, even response-curves for sensors. (Older Honda manuals would even tell you what wrench sizes you needed for the job).
Toyota's factory books are so vague that you cannot tell where the rear coolant drain is on the block from the book, nor can you even locate the amp for the car stereo. And does the differential have a drain plug? You have to guess, because it's not in the book. Even with the 'electrical supplement', figuring out something as simple as hooking up a subwoofer amplifier practically requires an engineering degree since their 'schematics' look like something they drew on a napkin.
I know what you mean about the service manuals. Helm Honda service manuals are easy to read, and have all the details. Even a novice like me can use them to perform some serious maintenance (timing belt, etc.). The Toyota service manuals cost twice as much, and are very hard to decipher for a novice. All I got for my Chevy S-10 was the cheap Haynes manual, and it's still easier to use than the Toyota manual.
Agree that the Hondas are just built with more quality than the Toyotas. I've test driven many Toyotas and they simply are not up to Honda feel and quality.
Where in the previous posting does it mention that Toyota's quality is poor (It was the service manual). In fact very few people can dispute Toyota's quality. That's what they are renowned for. Incidentally, Honda's feel may be different but their quality is certainly no better than Toyota's. I think your test drives were clouded by a little bias towards Honda (not that there is anything wrong with that). Let me guess which brand you own.... Honda? Just for the record, I think Honda vehicles are pretty good. Finally, different does not mean better.
That is certainly true. Different CAN be better, but is not limited to it.
Someone on the Camry vs. Accord forum recently mentioned the poor "quality" ride that Honda's Accord has. My outlook on the two vehicles is that the Camry has poorer handling, while the other driver sees the Accord has having a poor ride. Neither statement is really outside the lines of perception (the Accord is firmer than the Camry, for sure).
I knew these cars had problems, but I had no idea they were this bad. I really feel sorry for these people.
Of the postings in the site, almost every single Malibu had the same problems, especially multiple very expensive coolant leaks, total engine failures, having to replace brakes at 20K mile intervals, engine fires, stalling, no-start problems, etc.
On some internet sites, you have to discount the complaints by about 20% for those with an agenda (e.g. the chevy salesman posting about his bad luck with his imaginary toyota), or from people who consider a car 'a complete lemon' if the battery goes flat after four years.
However, the consumer affairs postings about the malibu sure look pretty real. Nobody could make all that bad stuff up.
your statement about not buying a malibu is misleading.....most if not all of the models referenced in the complaints were 99-02 models....a few 03 an 04..and I beleive I saw one 06 model....
majority was the head gasket issue......on the 00-01 models...a known weak point on that model...one person was stating he was disappointed that the dealership would replaced it with 102K on the car......several of the cars where purchased used with 75K or more .......
I would say few if any of these problems exist with the current generation of Malibus.....I have an 04 Maxx with 94K on it now...and not one problem.....
so to categorize the current generation of malibu in the same vain as these complaints isnt justified IMHO
so to categorize the current generation of malibu in the same vain as these complaints isnt justified IMHO
I remember the last generation (97-02) Malibu was also supposed to be reliable. Consumer Reports even had the car as a "Recommended" model. As it turned out, much of it was wishful thinking. Is the current generation really better, or are we just wishing again?
The only previous gen. Malibu I drove was an abused rental. It was one of the most disagreeable vehicles I was ever in. The new one is WAY better.
However, despite the complaints, I'm not sure that later models (01-02) weren't reliable (I don't have access to CR right now). Edmunds comments aren't statistically valid. Ten or twelve dissatisfied owners can really dominate a board.
The Power ratings for 01 models are mostly fours on dependability, but lower on appeal (I'd think so, it's a disagreeable vehicle).
Your story about batteries dying is actually common on car lots. I used to live across the street from a Toyota dealership and they had this little battery charger on wheels that they would push throught the lot periodically to charge the batteries of several cars (both used and new). So its not so uncommon or a reflection on the cars reliability.
The new-for-2007 Camry 4-cyl has a 5-speed auto and is a lot slower than the "old" 2003-2007 Accord 4-cyl, according to testing. It also "feels" slower based on many reports. Let's also remember that a VAST majority of Camry owners and Accord owners opt for the 4-cylinder models.
There's more to a powertrain than a transmission. Like the engine. Let's not say "can't match" until we actually know what engine the Accord will use.
I can't help but wonder what "these parts" are. In the lower 48, the STICKER on some Automatic Accords is under $19k. Currently, EX model Accords (second from top-of-line) are going for under $20k. This is loaded with 6CD, Auto, Power Driver's seat, Moonroof, extras such as heated mirrors, standard 6 airbags, etc...
A Value Package Accord should go for under $17k, an LX close to $18k, and an SE Accord for $18k and change.
A completely loaded Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation stickers for $30k, but can be had for $26k before Tax and Title (based on the forums).
The MSRP for the Accord AT VP is $19,425. I once seen a newspaper leader ad for $18,495 (currently there's an ad for $17,8 for a MT VP). You'd really be making a deal if you could get an 07 Camry AT for less than $20k. You CAN NOT get a AT Civic for the price of the LS Malibu. There are at least 3 Chevy dealerships advertising the LS @ between $15k to $15,5k.
So, I stick to my story ... is it fair to compare the LS vs Accord/Camry when the competition is $3-5k more?
If you are going by ads and not acutally asking for quotes, I imagine it would be easy to assume. Many people feel that Hondas are typically not dealt on very well, and assume they'll pay a high price to get one. By advertising closeout pricing (say, $23,500 for an EXL-V6), the dealers would miss out on "cheating" some of the people who didn't know any better, who expected to have to pay much more. Real-world results are quite different however, if you do much researching at all. Check out the Prices Paid forum for what people are really paying (typically around $1,000-$1,500 under invoice. The incentive money Honda is offering is from $750 to $1,200 on Accords, depending on model).
I'm not saying you can get an Accord equally equipped to an LS Malibu for $15k, but I do believe you can do better than the prices you are quoting (I believe what you say 100%, but I've also seen way too much indicating that a buyer can beat those prices).
A Camry would be more than either car, since it is a much newer model.
To answer your question though, I'd say its perfectly fair to compare the Malibu/Accord/Camry trio together. What the Malibu lacks in refinement and niceities, it makes up for in low price.
Its a case of you get (or don't get) what you pay (or don't pay) for.
I need to purchase a new car I like the camry a lot but I am concern about the transmission problems on the Camry V6 so I am looking at the Honda Accord. How does the Accord compares to the camry quality.
before settling for Camry research their transmission problems...i have spent a fair amount doing so and it was rather unsettling, so I went with Accord instead.
Shadow has not exaggerated. My Accord 92's motor at 240K+ miles after the tune up sounded like BUTTER & SILK. My other Accord hybrid '05 runs on the highway and the only sound I hear is the tiny sound of the hybrid "EEEER" very enjoyably. I am serious.
Plunging customer satisfaction with Toyota is frightening. The ratings are lowest with Edmunds, but the Yahoo ratings are really awful. 2.5 stars for the Camry (out of five) for the last two years is about as bad as it gets with lots of angry buyers. Even my Optima does 4.5. At least GM's troubles were a gradual decline during the seventies and eighties and not this plunge off the cliff. I'd be scared if I was a buyer.
I think it's hard to judge a car by personal reviews. Camry owners seem to expect perfection, so everything gets magnified when there are problems. The Accord is the same way. Problems with other cars are dismissed easier, because the owners see a couple problems as a normal part of ownership. I see professional reviews as more informative because they have driven other cars in the class, and have something to compare it to. A professional reviewer also doesn't own any of the cars, so they are less likely to have a biased opinion.
My experience is the opposite. Camry and Accord owners expect perfection, so they often overlook or dismiss problems they encounter. The cognitive dissonance is satisfied by blowing off unexpected new car service requirements as flukes, and they will still tell everyone how reliable their car is.
Domestics seem to have an opposite tack- they will complain about every problem because of their prior perception of poor domestic quality.
Domestics seem to have an opposite tack- they will complain about every problem because of their prior perception of poor domestic quality.
Why would I buy a car, if I think it has poor quality. Then complain when it turns out to be true?
Also, when it comes to personal reviews, it depends on what the expectations are. Say one buyer has been driving around in an old junker for the past 10 years, and another buyer's previous car was a high-end luxury car. A new Accord may seem like heaven on earth to the first guy, while to the second guy it may seem like a step down. While a professional reviewer is comparing the car to it's competition, a personal reviewer is often comparing the car only to his/her previous car.
You're right about me, I do have very high expectations. But that I would overlook or dismiss problems because of... ...what did you say again?
I don't care how trouble free the previous Malibu may have been as it was it was far from perfection in how it was designed and executed. I would be miserable driving that car day in and day out. I can't comment on the just launched Malibu.
If I were to dish out major $$$ for repairs on a car, or was unsatisfied with the way it drives, getting poor mileage, or dissatisfied in any way with a car, I certainly would not buy that model car again, no matter what the reputation of that car is. The Accord has the highest percentage of repeat buyers, because it has the highest percentage of satisfied consumers. The idea that we are all having major problems, and denying them, is far fetched at best.
When one of your hondas or toyotas can take what our 1991 Chevy took, then I just MIGHT consider one.
1. 120k of heavy duty police work 2. 250k of taxi abuse 3. and then me trying to kill it a. going up curbs at 35+ mph b. running 1 gallon of water to 10 gallons of gas c. taking out poles and leveling gravel with it d. throwing it into reverse at highway speeds e. jumping it to the point that it was sparking out of the bottom f. ignoring oil changes g. taking the car "rallying" h. taking of spark plug wires for a week at a time i. jumping on the hood, trunk & roof j. and more
In 390k+ miles the car never had the engine, transmission or any other major component replaced. The car NEVER "broke" down. The car didn't even have dents where I jumped on it.
Why would I put such abuse on a car? To prove that GM does make the best out there.
Yes they have made some junk in the past, just like honda, toyota and any other maker. But at the end of the day, when you want a car to last, GM makes them.
For every story of one automaker having a vehicle lasting umpteen miles, another automaker has one as well. Trying to kill a car is senseless; if you didn't want it anymore, donate it to a charity that can use it (there's several in my midsize city that will even come pick it up from you, and you get a hefty tax write-off).
In the Civic message boards, a Craigslist ad had a Civic for sale with 1.1 million miles on it. Little more than clutch replacement, brakes, etc...
How about we get back on topic; Camry, Accord, and Malibu?
Well, my intent wasn't to inhibit anyone posting, but rather to point out that because one automaker can have a relatively bulletproof vehicle, doesn't mean that others can't either.
My granddad sold his '87 Civic Wagon in '02. He had 255k miles on it, original automatic transmission and all. No power steering, crank windows, manual locks, and a 12 Valve 1.5L. He got $1,000 for it; his asking price in the newspaper.
Despite the excellent service he got from his wagon, he replaced it with a Frontier pickup because it fit his needs better (and it was a STEAL - a newspaper special at a local Chevrolet dealer).
The truth is that we won't truly know how bulletproof the vehicles like the new Malibu, Accord, or Camry are until a large group of people carries them to 200k miles (or attempts to do so, anyway).
Comments
Loren
Loren
What still pushes me away from even the honda. With nearly 3000 of gm card earnings I contacted my nearby big city honda dealer. They were willing to take $1100 off sticker on an accord. I went to chevy dealer and they offered me a fair trade-in value and started at dealer invoice on an Impala or Monte Carlo or Malibu. Throw in 1500 rebates and the gm card earnings and the V6 Impala rolls off the lot for $7000 to 9000 less than a V6 LX Auto Accord. The argument on behalf of spending the $9000 extra is that I get to pay more insurance premiums to support the higher cost to fix and higher resale value for the honda? I also get to pay $300 more sales tax at purchase and the excise tax each year on $4500 more car. The honda warranty is shorter and the US trade defecit grows too. I don't see the light. Chevy was recently rated at 232 problems per 1000 vehicles in the first 3 years of ownership (J D Power). The average of all Japanese brands was 235 problems per 1000 vehicles. Honda was at around 227 problems. that was before GM extwnded it's warranty. The Honda is certainly not more attractive or efficient than the Chevy. I don't see the light for Honda. Maybe it's softness of the interior door panel at some spot you wouldn't touch anyway unless you were checking for it.
You apparently made the right chocie for you, especially if that is the only Honda dealer in your area. They offered you $1,100 off of sticker, when everyone reporting on Edmunds (in the Accord prices paid forum) is paying $1,000 or more UNDER INVOICE! I mean EX-V6 loaded Accords for less than $24k, around $25k with NAVI. That's $5k off sticker.
That dealer sounds like bad news. Enjoy your new Chevy, dave.
The Accord sells for more because IT IS WORTH more if for no other reason than that is what people pay for them, and is directly relative to how much more it continues to be worth as the years pass. It is really more expensive to own? Maybe, maybe not.
1. negotiating 1000-2000 off MSRP
2. a 1250 rebate
3. GM card earnings
These 3 things can cut that 7450 first year hit in half or more. It's not hard to see these making the LaCrosse comparable or even less than the Accord in depreciation in the first year. In the 2nd thru 9th years, the Lacrosse is listed as less depreciating than the Honda. I believe the Malibu story will be similar. However,:
The Accord will be more expensive to insure every year.
The Accord warranty will run out sooner.
The Accord will have higher excise tax each year in my state.
The more expensive car has to get the higher sales tax bill at purchase.
The more expensive car will cause the payment of more interest on the car loan.
My friend gets 23-25 mpg in his V6 auto Accord except when he goes on a long trip, so I don't see any potential for gas savings for the Honda. I wouldn't expect the Accord tires or brakes to cost less than those for Malibu or Lacrosse.
I saw for myself and I don't agree with the depreciation info that Honda feeds us in tv commercials. The Malibu depreciates less than the Impala or the Lacrosse because it gets better gas mileage and costs less initially.
Loren
GM has come a long way. But I cannot 'forgive and forget' the amount of time, money, and frustration I have had to deal with in the past. Sure, it's sorta fun to swap an alternator, starter, or radiator on a GM V8, and when my THM250 tranny exploded into pieces on my Grand Prix, it was sorta exciting. And when the 86 GrandAM threw a rod that destroyed both the engine and tranny at the same time, that was classic! ($2,800 USD). Part of my honeymoon was spent at a tranny shop when my Delta 88 decided to chew up and spit out one of it's clutches on it's THM-350 (true I was hauling a 1500lb trailer, but had a tranny cooler).
I worked on many of the delighful 'quad-4' engines with cracked heads/blown head gaskets, and helped diagnose all sorts of whacked out sensor problems, stalling and driveability issues or similar problems with mid-90s GM cars.
My parents gave up on GM in 1990, when they sold their GM stock and bought their first Honda Accord with the proceeds. They had always owned Buicks, but the build quality and design problems of their last buick were horrible.
Honda is not perfect. There are a couple weak points, like brake durability and cabin noise. But in terms of long-term reliability, I am sold.
At 175K miles, the only hard parts that my 90 Accord ever needed were brake rotors, CV-joints/axles/front wheel bearings. Period. Alternator? original. AC compressor? original. Yes, the tranny was starting to get a little rough, the struts were getting soft. BUT, the engine burned no oil, and there were NO rattles, squeaks, or leaks.
My 92 Accord, which I sold at 145K miles was just the same. Only parts were distributor (done free by Honda), top radiator tank ($130) and a vehicle speed sensor ($70). That's it.
I sold my 97 Accord at only 85K miles. The only part that failed on that car was the AC condensor due to a big rock. Everything else was untouched from the factory, except for rotors and brake pads.
I know that comparing mid-80s GM cars to mid-90s Hondas is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Personally, I have had to replace one GM engine, and three GM automatic transmissions. The single most expensive hard part I've ever bought for a Honda was a set of front axles and wheel bearings for around $250 for the set. I've never had to tow a Honda vehicle, or ever been stranded by one.
GM may have 'come a long way baby'. But the stories I hear from some of my co-workers who have to replace A/C compressors, alternators, and silly things like window regulators or AC control units tells me otherwise.
I sincerely wish you good luck with your Malibu. But the only way you'll ever see me in a GM showroom is if I win a Corvette in the church raffle. Cheers.
I've owned four Hondas (90,92, and 97 Accord) and 02 CR-V and one 1997 Avalon.
My Avalon is roomy, smooth, and powerful, and has lots of nice toys.
BUT...build quality, compared to 97 Accord is not good.
Car rattles...a lot! Had to fix coolant leak, tranny fluid leak, has lots of suspension noise, and even had to swap power steering rack. Toyota did several 'mid-year' engineering changes (so you end up buying the wrong brake pads half the time).
I do all my own car repairs and service. Honda tech manuals are great. Toyota's really, really, suck. Honda's factory service manuals give you every pinout, wire color, even response-curves for sensors. (Older Honda manuals would even tell you what wrench sizes you needed for the job).
Toyota's factory books are so vague that you cannot tell where the rear coolant drain is on the block from the book, nor can you even locate the amp for the car stereo. And does the differential have a drain plug? You have to guess, because it's not in the book. Even with the 'electrical supplement', figuring out something as simple as hooking up a subwoofer amplifier practically requires an engineering degree since their 'schematics' look like something they drew on a napkin.
That is certainly true. Different CAN be better, but is not limited to it.
Someone on the Camry vs. Accord forum recently mentioned the poor "quality" ride that Honda's Accord has. My outlook on the two vehicles is that the Camry has poorer handling, while the other driver sees the Accord has having a poor ride. Neither statement is really outside the lines of perception (the Accord is firmer than the Camry, for sure).
Different, but not necessarily better.
I knew these cars had problems, but I had no idea they were this bad. I really feel sorry for these people.
Of the postings in the site, almost every single Malibu had the same problems, especially multiple very expensive coolant leaks, total engine failures, having to replace brakes at 20K mile intervals, engine fires, stalling, no-start problems, etc.
On some internet sites, you have to discount the complaints by about 20% for those with an agenda (e.g. the chevy salesman posting about his bad luck with his imaginary toyota), or from people who consider a car 'a complete lemon' if the battery goes flat after four years.
However, the consumer affairs postings about the malibu sure look pretty real. Nobody could make all that bad stuff up.
majority was the head gasket issue......on the 00-01 models...a known weak point on that model...one person was stating he was disappointed that the dealership would replaced it with 102K on the car......several of the cars where purchased used with 75K or more .......
I would say few if any of these problems exist with the current generation of Malibus.....I have an 04 Maxx with 94K on it now...and not one problem.....
so to categorize the current generation of malibu in the same vain as these complaints isnt justified IMHO
I remember the last generation (97-02) Malibu was also supposed to be reliable. Consumer Reports even had the car as a "Recommended" model. As it turned out, much of it was wishful thinking. Is the current generation really better, or are we just wishing again?
However, despite the complaints, I'm not sure that later models (01-02) weren't reliable (I don't have access to CR right now). Edmunds comments aren't statistically valid. Ten or twelve dissatisfied owners can really dominate a board.
The Power ratings for 01 models are mostly fours on dependability, but lower on appeal (I'd think so, it's a disagreeable vehicle).
There's more to a powertrain than a transmission. Like the engine. Let's not say "can't match" until we actually know what engine the Accord will use.
In terms of $$$, ride quality, and economy, I think the LS competes pretty favorably with Corolla/Civic.
A Value Package Accord should go for under $17k, an LX close to $18k, and an SE Accord for $18k and change.
A completely loaded Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation stickers for $30k, but can be had for $26k before Tax and Title (based on the forums).
The MSRP for the Accord AT VP is $19,425. I once seen a newspaper leader ad for $18,495 (currently there's an ad for $17,8 for a MT VP). You'd really be making a deal if you could get an 07 Camry AT for less than $20k. You CAN NOT get a AT Civic for the price of the LS Malibu. There are at least 3 Chevy dealerships advertising the LS @ between $15k to $15,5k.
So, I stick to my story ... is it fair to compare the LS vs Accord/Camry when the competition is $3-5k more?
I'm not saying you can get an Accord equally equipped to an LS Malibu for $15k, but I do believe you can do better than the prices you are quoting (I believe what you say 100%, but I've also seen way too much indicating that a buyer can beat those prices).
A Camry would be more than either car, since it is a much newer model.
To answer your question though, I'd say its perfectly fair to compare the Malibu/Accord/Camry trio together. What the Malibu lacks in refinement and niceities, it makes up for in low price.
Its a case of you get (or don't get) what you pay (or don't pay) for.
I need to purchase a new car I like the camry a lot but I am concern about the transmission problems on the Camry V6 so I am looking at the Honda Accord. How does the Accord compares to the camry quality.
I have never own a Honda before.
Thanks
jdelgado89
Camry, if you want to get from point A to point B as comfortably as possible. Not much fun though.
Both cars are pretty reliable. The Accord will probably be cheaper, because the Camry is a new for 07 model.
It will still be relevant. A 10 year old Accord will still be worth a couple thousand more than a 10 year old Malibu.
Well, good for you...I can always hear something even with my brand new cars. :sick:
Accord Uphill - Full Throttle 0-70MPH
These videos were taken on the same day. They just demonstrate how well my 1996 Accord (2.2L, 130hp, non-VTEC) is still running after 175k+ miles.
And, I don't typically drive like the second video demonstrates. I couldn't get the 26MPG I average THAT way!
Domestics seem to have an opposite tack- they will complain about every problem because of their prior perception of poor domestic quality.
Why would I buy a car, if I think it has poor quality. Then complain when it turns out to be true?
Also, when it comes to personal reviews, it depends on what the expectations are. Say one buyer has been driving around in an old junker for the past 10 years, and another buyer's previous car was a high-end luxury car. A new Accord may seem like heaven on earth to the first guy, while to the second guy it may seem like a step down. While a professional reviewer is comparing the car to it's competition, a personal reviewer is often comparing the car only to his/her previous car.
I don't care how trouble free the previous Malibu may have been as it was it was far from perfection in how it was designed and executed. I would be miserable driving that car day in and day out. I can't comment on the just launched Malibu.
1. 120k of heavy duty police work
2. 250k of taxi abuse
3. and then me trying to kill it
a. going up curbs at 35+ mph
b. running 1 gallon of water to 10 gallons of gas
c. taking out poles and leveling gravel with it
d. throwing it into reverse at highway speeds
e. jumping it to the point that it was sparking out of the bottom
f. ignoring oil changes
g. taking the car "rallying"
h. taking of spark plug wires for a week at a time
i. jumping on the hood, trunk & roof
j. and more
In 390k+ miles the car never had the engine, transmission or any other major component replaced. The car NEVER "broke" down. The car didn't even have dents where I jumped on it.
Why would I put such abuse on a car? To prove that GM does make the best out there.
Yes they have made some junk in the past, just like honda, toyota and any other maker. But at the end of the day, when you want a car to last, GM makes them.
Check out http://www.chevy200k.com/gallery/ for more proof.
There are GM cars out there with the same quality built in their trucks.
In the Civic message boards, a Craigslist ad had a Civic for sale with 1.1 million miles on it. Little more than clutch replacement, brakes, etc...
How about we get back on topic; Camry, Accord, and Malibu?
The second sentence almost had me spill the coffee. That was funny.
My granddad sold his '87 Civic Wagon in '02. He had 255k miles on it, original automatic transmission and all. No power steering, crank windows, manual locks, and a 12 Valve 1.5L. He got $1,000 for it; his asking price in the newspaper.
Despite the excellent service he got from his wagon, he replaced it with a Frontier pickup because it fit his needs better (and it was a STEAL - a newspaper special at a local Chevrolet dealer).
The truth is that we won't truly know how bulletproof the vehicles like the new Malibu, Accord, or Camry are until a large group of people carries them to 200k miles (or attempts to do so, anyway).