Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
It's good to know the 3 year in the future predicted residual of the Veracruz is better than the 3 year predicted residual value of the Highlander. Let's check back in 3 years and see if the predictions hold water.
So I will think of this example when someone says, "Honda and Toyota don't offer longer warranties because they don't have to." While that's partly true, the other side of it is that longer warranties would hurt their profit margins.
So one more post to your post. This can be extrapolated to say Hyundai and GM are having their profit margins hurt by these longer warranties. The flip side is they are needed to develop new business. Not developing new business is more costly than having the extended warranties. Honda and Toyota do not need extended warranties, such as this, to develop new business.
Regards:
OldCEM
Extended Warranties are those extra, after-market warranties the dealer wants to sell you when you buy that new car. He will sell more EW's if the factory warranty is only a couple of years. These EW's are BIG PROFITS for the dealerships, really big, up to 80% for the price you pay, goes to the dealership. You have 30 days to cancel it. After that the dealer gets him money. It might be pressure from the dealership that prevents the factory from increasing the months/miles to the OEM Warranty?
Take that argument further, and the most reliable engines on the planet might be from Chrysler. And that changed mid-year. Was it a matter of a cut-off day when Chrysler suddenly started building more reliable engines? (the day they implemented the new warranty)
Warranty is all about marketing. If you could sell without it, why wouldn't one? If one can't... and there you go!
BTW, I've made a point on this issue before. Honda might offer 5-year/60K mile warranty. But they offer 100K mile warranty on certified used cars. So, a 2007 Accord with 10K miles on it, can be certified and sold with 100K mile warranty on it? The idea... it makes a used Accord competent against a new Accord, and as a result its resale value. And an Accord is eligible to be sold certified used even if it were 6-years old and had 75K miles. The new buyer gets 25K miles, even on a six year old car. That increases appeal of the old car.
What does GM do?
It seems our previous discussion around this topic have been lost. Let me remind you, Honda and Toyota seem to care about their used cars and back them up by providing a better deal than with new cars.
Neither has had trouble convincing to the buyers that they build reliable and durable machines. So, they don't have to worry about attracting new car buyers using an agenda others must use.
Now, offering 100K miles on used car helps increase its appeal. A certified Honda brings something with it, that helps it compete against new cars. The only way a Hyundai or GM used car can compete is by much lower price on the used. Otherwise, why would you pay more for lower warranty than a new car (if that were the driving force)? Think about it.
You are a superior spin artist and probably are working for the Democratic party.
I compared the engines with the note about same materials and maintenance, but you missed that, several times. I never said or inferred that Honda motors were less reliable because Honda only warrants them for 5/60K. I said nothing even close to that. I asked why they don't offer a longer warranty. I was told that warranties are just marketing trying to entice new customers and have nothing to do with reliability.
Now your saying that Honda offers a warranty on used Honda's that goes to 100K miles. That is a no cost, Honda Warranty, not an after market warranty sold by Honda dealers, right?
If Honda doesn't use warranties to entice new customers, why on earth would they need one for their used car. That makes no sense to me at all. From what the Honda defenders are saying, they all last way longer than 100K miles, so the warranty is a waste of the paper it is written on isn't it?
Heck, both Honda and GM warranties are for 5 years anyway and I will see 5 years long before the car sees 100K miles.
Now spin that
I think your teminology could be considered "offensive". Saying it is a sales ploy, gives it a negative connotation. I'm sure it was not you intent, but it's like you are saying anyone who thinks that warranty adds any value is a fool that fell for a "sales ploy".
Longer warranties, even on Accord and Camry, have a cost. A 100,000 mile warranty might cost you $1000 or so to buy it on your own. Maybe without the profits and other extra cost of an aftermarket warranty, it would only cost the manufacturer something like $500 to put it on every Camry or Accord.
Yes, this seems logical.
"If Honda doesn't use warranties to entice new customers, why on earth would they need one for their used car."
Because other maufactures offer certified vehicles. It's one thing to be sure about the purchase of a new vehicle based on manufacturers reputation. But an inherently reliabile vehicle could be turned into a pile of junk with lack of mantenance and the buyer of a used/CPO car wouldn't know it until after the purchase. Hence the need for all manufacturers to offer certified cars...unless the cars are sold as is.
I can see why you would maybe not keep a car more than 5 years, in that case.
Would suspect that my repairs tend to be mileage related while any problems you might have would be age related?
Yes, I do have a lot of age related problems...oh, you meant the car
That said ,it is your cars that would hold value substantially better and longer than normal making one of those 'Japanese' brands an obvious choice. A 1997 Accord with only 80k on it is going to be attractive to somebody, more so than if it was a 10 year old Korean or American branded car.
My own choice was not really based on price (but Mazda is Japanese), if I had liked the Accord better I would not let the initial $3000 or so extra keep me from buying it. But, I would tend to think that it is actually the opposite...you will have no problem finding a buyer for 150,000 mile or even 200,000 mile Accord, whatever the age. I would think I'd have no problem either way, because of low mileage. Historically we have kept cars, until they are junk. suitable for donation, or worth a few hundred bucks.
To gain share the domestic automakers have to be innovative and competitive. When my children are ready by buy a car I don't know what it will be, but they have talked about Japan Inc, not America Inc. One of the reasons is that Honda and Toyota have vehicles for young single people. What does GM have? Malibu? Aura? It would please me to no end to buy a car equivalent to the quality of an Accord for American prices. (The Aura and Malibu are not the equivalent and in my opinion are not superior)
300K?? I have never seen such a thing from Buick. What are the years and models of the Buicks you have seen reach 300K?
The '93 EX was sold at invoice (and they had to throw in a few things), the '07 was well below invoice.
Since this is a midsize forum I'll refer to the Century and Regals where the 3800 has been used. But it's in leSabres, Oldsmobiles, and Bonnevilles all around you as you drive. Started with the late 80s models of full-sized cars they had that (with a few repairs on MAF sensors and other minor things and then the 92 model changes for the full-sized H- and G- models cars.
A neighbor's father has been a low end used car business in a smaller town area here for decades. He says they are good for 300k when maintained right. He trades in them after they've been traded in by first or second owners and they end up in the lower price shoppers' market. Look at the ones on some used car lots to check the mileage.
I traded my 93 with 150,000 because my wife wanted a new one; it ran great. Transmission was great. She wanted a new car for her retirement. I'm driving a 98 with 160,000 miles. Again it runs great. I've had occasional maintenance. But the oil's been changed at 3000 in winter to 4500 in summer with good oil and new filter every time. Transmission has been serviced at regular intervals--none of this 100K miles then change the fluid for me.
If you don't change oil til 7500 in less than optimum driving conditions, if you don't change plugs and wires and care for the transmission, you're going to have things break in all brands.
I just recalled a high mileage 3800 is owned by a parent in son's scout troop. The dad mentioned it was over 250,000 miles and that was 3 years ago. His wife drives it to her job at a Proctor and Gamble company daily. She was behind me dropping off my son at school yesterday in her white Buick.
I hope I've helped with the perception of a Buick actually survived past 90 K miles and same for the 3800.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Cars that haven't been abused can make it well into the 200s, it's a question of how much money and how the body holds up as time goes by. I've been in friends cars with many miles on them. They proudly proclaim it's been maintenance free and running like new. To me they felt like a death trap waiting to happen. It's all in the perception I guess.
Are you implying my two cars with 60 and 160 K miles or previous car was a death trap?
I have told about the Honda from late 90s that I saw a nearby crossroad. The motor was clanking. The car lived somewhere down that road. Many days later I saw it on a hook leaving that area. So I can infer that not all of certain models are durable.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Did you even read my post?
So I can infer that not all of certain models are durable.
Wrong. What can be infered is that vehicle died, maybe due to neglect by the owners.
edit: Even the worse of cars can go on indefintely, all it takes is money. Some cars need less money to keep them going. Other cars need less money, but age horribly. Either way, cars that haven't had a major overhaul at 150K miles to me are death traps.
Exactly. Thanks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh man, one of the guys I carpool with would make fun of the money I spent on maintenance on the old Accord (mainly when I rebuilt the front suspension) and talked about how he hadn't spent any money on his '96. Every freeway expansion joint felt like the front end was going to fall out. I was scared we would lose a ball joint or tie rod on the days he drove.
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/AlternateRoute/Rising-Sun-1
Lately, it seems, the overwhelming majority of the posts are about warranties, revolutions per minute and the age-old domestic-versus-Asian brands. Whatever happened to posts about a car's features? Likes and dislikes? In order words, posts about the cars themselves?
Given their long list of features and pluses, I am surprised that the Fusion/Milan twins have not become the best-selling mid-size cars in the USA. I guess it will take a while longer for that to happen, if ever.
Today, it is safe to say, the Camcords are the benchmarks in the mid-size market but the competition is keen and getting more so.
One trend I don't care for is the move to larger wheels and shorter (but fatter) tires. Our Fusion came with 17 X 7.5 alloy wheels with 225-50R-17 Michelin Pilot tires. These things are terribly expensive and I think 16-inch wheels with 215-60R-16 tires would probably ride better. More and more cars are going to 18-inch wheels, too. What's the purpose here? Anybody know?
I'm so old I remember when manufactures went from standard 15-inch wheels to 14-inchers. That was a change made on the 1957 Fords, if I recall correctly. In time, the wheels grew back to 15 inches, then 16 and now 17s are commonplace. I just don't get it.
Recently took a 340-mile round trip in the AWD Fusion and averaged 24 mpg, exactly what the revised EPA estimate says even though I drove 65 to 75 mph most of the time. Our average speed (which included a 15-minute doughnut stop) was 59 mph for six-plus hours of traveling time. The Fusion really rides nice. It's a pleasure to drive on trips but I still think our old 1997 Thunderbird rides even better. Our 2000 Ford Focus station wagon isn't half bad either. The bird is a full-size car and the Focus is a compact, so that probably accounts for the differences.
Guess my wife and I are among the few people in the world who have never owned a Honda or Toyota, although we have owned three Mazda products: a GLC compact, a B2000 pickup and a Miata MX5 convertible.
We're approaching our one-year anniversary, Dec. 4, with the Fusion and not a single problem, squeak or rattle at 6,000-plus miles. Hope this trend continues for a long time. There's only the two of us for three vehicles but all get driven to some degree, but only a couple times a week for the T-bird, which still delivers 14-15 mpg in all-city driving with its 3.8-liter V6. The Fusion is a lot peppier even though it is a 3.0-liter V6.
Yeah, I know, the 3.0 Duratec is not particularly fast when compared to the Honda and Toyota V6s but it is more than adequate for us and any average driver. The six-speed automatic transmission is a really nice feature but we really don't have any need for the AWD.
We live in a small city of about 30,000 people and I have yet to see another AWD Fusion on the road here. Not too surprising since we rarely get much snow.
I compared the engines with the note about same materials and maintenance, but you missed that, several times.
One must have really good reason to use live examples, draw conclusions (much less marked as “facts”) and then throw in a disclaimer about “all things being equal”. When they are not equal, you don’t make a comparison like this. You make a point. But, I might have just gone way over your head.
I never said or inferred that Honda motors were less reliable because Honda only warrants them for 5/60K. I said nothing even close to that. I asked why they don't offer a longer warranty. I was told that warranties are just marketing trying to entice new customers and have nothing to do with reliability.
You shouldn’t assume that people reading your posts and responding to them are idiots. It is what spin artists actually do. I, like the rest of the world, figured out from your post (#7680) that you were making a point on 5-year/60K mile warranty in terms of durability. You weren’t simply asking for information. You were, once again, drawing a comparison. In your words:
"Oh! BTW, Why is the Honda Powertrain Limited Warranty (years/miles) = 5/60,000. and the Cadillac/Aura XR for 5 years, or 100,000 miles/160,000 kms?"
Let me answer your question here: “because they have earned the rights and can afford to”. Companies aren’t in business to do social service. They aren't doing you a favor by providing long warranties. Are they?
If Honda doesn't use warranties to entice new customers, why on earth would they need one for their used car.
Had you given some thought to my previous post(s) on the subject, you would have felt the need to ask the question again (and call my post a “spin”). So, allow me to help.
I am no marketing genius but can certainly analyze situations and that lead me to have an opinion that simply building new cars and ignoring used car market is a short sighted approach. On the surface, it may seem trivial to consider older cars having an impact but reputation is built on the past, not in the present or using the future.
Companies like Honda have earned the respect of folks (who happen to be among the most loyal buyers). No company is perfect, but it is easier to believe in a recognized brand. So, their new products sell with an average new car warranty. People aren’t too worried about it. Ten years and 184K miles ago, I wasn’t. And many won’t keep their cars for more than 3-4 years. Many more will trade in around 5-6 years. Quite a few will keep them till the wheels fall off.
But, a progressive company can’t live with a tunnel vision selling only new cars. They must also worry about keeping the value of older cars high which, in turn, helps sell newer cars. You might think that resale is simply about hype. If true, why doesn’t everybody use it?
Used cars have to be able to compete and offer more than a lower price. If only reduced price were to be the selling point, it only gets worse with heavily discounted new cars. And this has a cascading effect. Prepare a list of companies that have, and currently, offer longest warranties, and you might see a trend.
For Honda, an average warranty is all that is needed to sell new cars. So, the company has freedom to offer more on its used car, and make them competent against new cars, not only from within the brand but competing brands too. The more isn’t simply limited to a lower price tag, but longer warranty. Now a person may have a choice to buy a new Accord for $20K (60K), or a slightly used on for $18K with a much longer warranty (80-90K). I know, because a friend just went thru the exercise. Think about it, especially if you want to continue this discussion. It will help discuss cars, not political affiliations.
Heck, both Honda and GM warranties are for 5 years anyway and I will see 5 years long before the car sees 100K miles. Now spin that
Spin is already out there, as you have bought it. The more amusing aspect of the picture I'm getting is that not only did you buy the spin, you don't see a point to it, that "5-years" is what you will see before you get to 100K miles. That would be true for most folks. So, next time, take a look at GM's commercials around the warranty. "100K miles" gets the priority, and "5-years" (usually shown as the "second number") is also left unspoken in the audio. You know why? Thats marketing. Spin? Probably not to you, because you can't see it that way while I shake my head.
It has little to do with anything but the "Tonka truck" kid in us. Most folks want huge tires without regard to its downsides. So, I completely agree with you. In fact, last night a friend of mine and I walked out of a restaurant and she pointed at an ugly car. I looked over and it was Rolls Royce Phantom. I told her those cars aren't supposed to be called ugly.
She said, "there's something about those wheels, they look too big". I had to agree but with the point that smaller wheels on that body might not look decent (for a moment I thought, I was contradicting myself, and I was).
There is something wrong when a mainstream Honda Civic has a wheel that is larger than a higher trim Accord from 6-7 years ago. It can't be about performance either. If cars like NSX and S2000 (including the track ready, CR model) never needed 18" rims, why does a Civic (Mugen Si)?
Its all about looks, with little to no consideration given to sensibility. And those things not only add weight (a size up might end up adding 30-40 lb total, all else being equal), they also reduce drive train efficiency.
Speaking of the Grand National, what a car! That car had a single-turbocharged GM 3800 V6, and in it's last production year as the "GNX" in 1987, it produced a factory claimed 276 horsepower and 360 lb-ft of torque (many believe that those numbers were conservative).
The '87 GNX ran 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. That's as fast, or a couple tenths faster, than the Porsche 911 Turbo of the 1980's! Today, a nice example of a Grand National/GNX will sell for $30,000 to $40,000.
The 3800 is really a tough engine, and can run 200K to 300K+ miles with just routine maintanence. GM transmissions are also very durable.
Your thoughts mirror my own on this crazy wheel topic. I think the 20, 21 and even 22-inch wheels that you see on some cars just look weird (ugly?) but they are popular among certain groups.
I think I would prefer 16-inch wheels on our Fusion rather than the 17s it came with. I know that will be the case when it comes time to replace the Michelins.
I don't know that it is safe to say that anymore, at least in terms of professional opinion. Three examples:
1) In C/D's last comparo of mid-sized sedans, three cars outscored the new Camry: the prior-gen Accord, the new Altima, and the Optima. That the new Camry finished fourth compared to a five-year-old Accord, the Nissan, and a Kia (which was lauded for having higher quality than the Camry) is telling IMO.
2) MT just evaluated the Accord and Malibu head-to-head for their COTY review, and the Malibu outscored the Accord.
3) It is rumored (not yet officially announced to my knowledge) that the Malibu joins the Accord in C/D's 10Best for 2008.
There are some other indicators as well, e.g. the Fusion/Milan and Sonata outscoring the Camry V6 in predicted reliability according to CR, and the venerable Mazda6 being named by Edmunds.com as their Most Wanted Sedan under $25k, over the previous-gen Accord, new Camry, et. al.
So I don't think the Accord and Camry have a lock on being benchmarks for this class anymore. And we have yet to see the all-new 2009 Mazda6, which is winning raves in Europe, and the reworked 2009 Sonata. Still more tough competition for the Camcord.
P.S. Thunderbird was a COTY when there was a separate award for U.S. cars and foreign cars, wasn't it? And at one time, the Thunderbird was a pretty nice car in its class.
I really do enjoy a good discussion with differing points of view, as long as both parties get the real point of the other. We finally made that point in this thread, though the host may be ready to through us both out of here. I apologize to everyone for the length and direction this one took, it wasn't my intent.
For the record, I am not a car salesman, though I did sell Chrysler products back in the mid 80's. I made more money selling extended warranties than selling cars.
I did not buy my Aura XR because of the Warranty, in fact I didn't pay any attention to it at all. I bought it because of the 3.6 L DOHC 252 HP engine, 6 Speed Auto with manual mode and the suspension system. All, as compared to other cars in it's class. I never considered the Accord V6 in the same class when shopping, I considered the Acura, Lexus ES330, Toyota Camry V6, Nissan Altima, Malibu LTZ, and Pontiac G6.
I drove them all, some I rented for a weekend. When I was done, it was the Aura XR, that came out on top for comfort and performance/handling, and price (lowest) over them all.
I
Its all about looks, with little to no consideration given to sensibility. And those things not only add weight (a size up might end up adding 30-40 lb total, all else being equal), they also reduce drive train efficiency.
The wheels actually weigh less and result in lower unsprung weight which allows the suspension to work better. The car will handle and steer better with a larger alloy wheel and lower profile tire than a smaller wheel and bigger tire. In fact you can save up to 30 pounds per corner going from 15 inch steel wheels and 75 series tires to an 18 inch alloy wheel and 50 series tire. Of course going from a 15 inch factory alloy wheel to a 18 inch alloy wheel will result is less of a weight loss, but it will still weigh less because aluminum weighs less than rubber and steel. I have done this several times and the results is very noticeable to the driver.
I agree some people go to far and it is all about looks, which I agree looks stupid. I saw a Cadillac Sedan De Ville the other day with 22 inch wheels, really "ugly."
The professional reviewers have been kind to several of the Accords and Camrys competitors, including the Fusion and Milan. But the Camcords (or should it be Accrys/) are still, by far, the best-selling mid-sizers. And no, I am not saying that McDonalds burgers are better than Wendys just because they sell more. Still, if the demand was there, Wendys could surpass Mickey Ds.
We like our Fusion a lot. It has a ton of nice features, looks better than the Camcords (in our opinion), too. But the Camcords are still the benchmark that everything else is compared to.
In retrospect, the 2008 Malibu seems to be a really nice car. Maybe we should have waited. Our last GM product was a 1966 Delta 88 Oldsmobile, so it's been a while. I expect the 'Bu to shake the market up. Ford, as a company, may not survive another 10 years unless it produces some really innovative new products. The Fusion/Milan offer great potential, at least. Although a fine automobile, the Five Hundred/Taurus is definitely not the answer for Ford.
It's extremely likely that the Camry and Accord will remain at the top of the heap in the mid-size field for quite a few years.
One trend I don't care for is the move to larger wheels and shorter (but fatter) tires. Our Fusion came with 17 X 7.5 alloy wheels with 225-50R-17 Michelin Pilot tires. These things are terribly expensive and I think 16-inch wheels with 215-60R-16 tires would probably ride better. More and more cars are going to 18-inch wheels, too. What's the purpose here? Anybody know?
I guess they put the larger wheels on your car for the SPORTYness look. I am probably close to your age and I understand that the comfortable ride is what you want. It goes against the flow right now, but I am sure a good tire shop would help you find a wheel/tire combination that would give you the ride I think you want. You should have a tire with a 70-75 series profile, which will run about 30-32 psi. This will take all the smack out of cracks in the roadway that you probably feel now.
It was the 4 door TL. Small, nimble, even cozy feeling, It felt light and handled/accelerated very well. The Aura XR was faster, handled mountain roads better, felt roomier, had plenty of techy stuff (very long list) and the fit and finish inside and out was fantastic. Some have had a different opinion of this, but mine is tight and even everywhere.
The 6speed with manual mode and paddle shifters on the steering wheel was a BIG BIG plus to me.
Oh! I got mine for about $5-7,000 less than the Acura, Camry, and Altima.
The reason that the Accord and Camry are considered the "bench mark" in this class is mainly due to sales figures. If it sells the most, it must be the best, right? Reliability does factor into that conclusion too, but, the main reason is sales.
Look at the Ford Taurus. It was the bench mark for years, until the Camry over took it in sales. The F-150 is still considered the bench mark for pick-up's, but, it's not the most reliable pick-up. Sales dictate that it's the bench mark.
Look at any top sales figure leader in any given category, and you will see that vehicle is considered at this moment as the bench mark.
Exactly, when a car maker designs a new model, they want to sell as many of them as possible. So the logical thing to do, is to look at what the best selling cars in that segment offer, then try to meet it or beat it, if they can. The definition of Benchmark, IMO. You can lie to yourself, and the public, by saying you used a high-end luxury car as a benchmark, when you are not actually trying to compete with a higher end market segment.
If the "benchmark" is just the best-selling car, that's just a "quantity over quality" statement. I'll go with quality over quantity any time. There's a song that has the tag line,
Popularity, a winning start,
is not the best judge of good art.