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
Backy, I think I am getting dizzy trying to keep track of captain's comments on warranties and who needs or doesn't need long or short warranties, who needs warranties because they are low quality or can offer it because they are high quality or premium, etc, etc, etc.
I'm starting to feel like the old Nomad space probe from Star Trek TOS. I think I am going to go lie down for a little bit until the room stops spinning!
Chrysler came out with the fake and very laughably fine print riddled "lifetime" warranty which lasted about .... what.... 6 months? If my business is going bankrupt in a few months, I'd offer a LIFETIME warranty to increase my profits (or reduce my losses) too. That's called a no obligation promise.
Luxury car makers have always had longer warranties, they didn't increase their warranties out of desperation like Hyundai and Chrysler did. Therein lies the difference.
Trustworthy companies don't NEED long warranties, but it doesn't hurt to offer them.
I give USA car buyers more credit than that. A longer warranty might help sales for a little while. But if the quality and reliability of the cars isn't there, warranty alone won't sell cars (see the earlier posts about Mitsubishi and Chrysler, for example).
So I disagree completely with an earlier comment made that Hyundai's warranty is the only reason they have done well in sales. There's obviously much more to that. For example, Genesis did not win the "2009 North American Warranty of the Year" award.
Luxury car makers have always had longer warranties...
Great, then Hyundai is well-positioned in the luxury market with its long warranty.
So if a company plans on being around (without gov't bail outs!) for the long term, I think a longer warranty is a great indicator that quality has arrived.
A good indicator that it hasn't arrived is when a manufacturer suddenly lengthens their warranty but it's only for certain purchase dates that fall into a very narrow window on certain select models and is not retroactive to previous purchases for that same model year's vehicles (ie. Chrysler).
It's inherited. I really don't use hand signals all that often though.
A longer waranty is a win-wn situation for the consumer and manufacturer, as long as the product is of great quality.
to criticize Hyundai for their long warranties of past is like criticising somebody for backing up their statements with money. i.e. (betting and guarantees.)
regardless of whether or not Hyundai was in dire straits, they had the gumption and guts to offer a warranty no car company was willing to provide in that period. Obviously, Sales went up and Hyundai is still alive. why? because their cars held up and didn't get saddled with thousands and thousands of claims.
Logic is simple.
Build a good car, back it up with a warranty= Profit.
build a bad car and back it up with a warranty Bankruptcy
the more you argue against this simple logic, not only are you neglecting the consumer aspect of automotive relations, you are also willingly spinning the simple truth about warranties in general.
If I buy a computer. If two similar competing machines were of the same price. But, one of the machines offered a 3 year warranty, and the other machine offered none, which machine would I purchase? hmmm?
simple isn't it? Don't tell methat you would buy computer 2 because computer 2 is vastly superior. well then, your argument basically boils down to that Honda is vastly superior to Hyundai? Lots of consumer and journalists would disagree with there. Plus, Hyundai is cheaper and has a better warranty to boot! LOL
then it seems you also know nothing about what a Lexus is and what a Toyota isn't - sorry
I've owned 3 Toyota's, so I believe I know precisely what they are. Lexus is to Toyota what Cadillac is to GM, precisely. A Lexus is still a Toyota, and a Caddy is still a GM. One would think I besmirched Lexus by calling it a Toyota. I've already said Lexus' are fine automobiles, just over priced by ~10K IME. My 3 Toyota's are and have been fine so far, but not my most reliable vehicles.
If you ran a poll on 1000 adults, asking which warranty they preferred, 5 year or 10 year, what would the outcome be? That's right, 999 would prefer the 10 year, 1 old fish would probably misunderstand the question and take the 5 year.
Say, that's not a bad warranty! Definitely worth consideration!
They do if they're going to sell me a car.
If I'm shopping 2 or 3 brands, and the cars and prices are fairly close, the best warranty could definitely seal the deal.
Nobody would buy on warranty (or price) alone, but they're definitely part of the whole package.
People have been coming in just because of that warranty.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Sorry but I have to point this out...
In 1998 Honda's powertrain warranty was 3/36. So was Toyota's. I shopped Forester vs. RAV4 vs. CR-V.
Today they all match Subaru and offer a 5/60 powertrain warranty.
So both Honda and Toyota extended their powertrain coverage by 67%. B2B is still the same, sure, but remember we're comparing to Hyundai's 100k powertrain coverage, so it's relevant.
Honda's was still 3/36 in 2005, so they changed to 5/60 for model year 2006, per ConsumerGuide (not the same as Consumer Reports, BTW).
Not sure when Toyota changed, but it happened some time between 1998 and 2005.
Edit: British Rover beat me to it on the Honda side, but it's true for Toyota as well.
I am not criticizing Hyundai for their warranty policies at all - they did and are doing precisely what they must do to sell their products. My comments are only meant to point out why we have those warranties in the first place.
The implicartion or insuation that these lengthy warranties have to do with anything other than what they were (and are) forced to do - certainly got me going. Sorry, my blood pressure is now down to 'normal'.
Hyundai had to, did, and then followed up with improved product quality.
Mitsu had to, did, and then didn't.
Guess which one is doing well, and which one is selling fewer cars than Suzuki?
BUT what do you think happens if Hyundai (or any other) mfgrs. decides to 'go back' to 5/60 or whatever. Not so sure they can do it, even if you assume widespread acceptance of the improvements theory.
Folks that consider a Korean car EXPECT the long warranty, they don't EXPECT it when they are buying those J3s. Whether it's needed or not is not the point, that 'assumed' J3 quality an important part of the success of the J3 premium brands, then and now?
Mitsu has a multitude of problems many of which stem from a too close relationship with Chrysler and also with 'dumping' all the vehicles they could with some credit policies that were a joke. A 'Japanese' mfgr. that hasn't been able to 'do it right' - it does happen.
I know Mazda lost a sale with me when they lowered their 4/50K bumper to bumper to a lowly 3/36K because I felt that meant they were using more cheaper Ford parts now and therefore couldn't afford to keep a decent warranty. If they have no confidence in their product and reduce their warranty length, then why should I have any confidence? Again, only toyota/honda have this level of established consistent superioriorty when it comes to quality.
If Hyundai suddenly halved their warranties I'd be extremely suspicious of them.
Even though CR's ratings for Hyundai are good today, the public will not associate Hyundai with high quality until they sustain that performance for several years.
I think they're in the middle of that period.
Can they drop the warranty? Today it would be a mistake, I think it's too soon. I think they could dial it back a few years from now, though. They'd be wise to keep it even very slightly longer than most of the competition, though, maybe 6/70 or something.
That's partially correct, partially incorrect.
Mazda did indeed have a 4/50 warranty, but the powertrain was also just 4/50.
When they changed to 3/36 B2B, they actually extended the powertrain coverage to 5/60, to match the moves made by Honda and Toyota.
As for the parts sharing with Ford, that goes way, waaaaay back, well before they changed the warranty from 4/50 to {3/36 and 5/60}.
Mazda Protege = Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer
Mazda 626/MX-6 = Ford Probe
Wasn't the Ford Festiva basically a JDM Mazda?
Mazda developed the small cars, then and now. I had a 1991 Ford Escort GT that even had "Mazda" stamped on the engine in several places.
So 2007 had 4/50, but 2008 models got the 3/36 and 5/60 combo.
That was a whole 17 years after my cloned Escort came out, FWIW.
Actually, what we have right now in the luxury market (our topic, remember?) is that folks in that market expect a long warranty. So I contend Hyundai is exactly where it needs to be, with its long warranty, for building a presence in the luxury car marketplace, and in fact they have an advantage over other manufacturers by virtue of a longer warranty.
As for "expectations"... right now, buyers do expect a longer warranty from Hyundai (and Kia and Mitsubishi and Suzuki and Chrysler and Acura and Lexus and Infiniti and...) because they have long warranties in place, and for Hyundai the long warranty has been there for over ten years. So that builds an expectation with buyers, making it difficult to reduce the long warranty no matter how good the quality of Hyundais is (or the other brands that have long warranties). In fact, HMA planned to eliminate the long warranty as of 2010, but its dealers pushed back and HMA decided to keep the long warranty for now. Hyundai dealers recognize that they have a big advantage in the auto market and they don't want to give it up. Can you blame them? And Hyundai determined that the warranty costs were low enough that it was not a problem to keep the long warranty in place. So a win-win, for the dealers and for car buyers.
fintail could probably verify this but I don't think Mercedes sales were hurt too badly when they dropped the 4 years' free service, did it?
As long as sales are increasing and they make a profit they shouldn't change a thing - including creating a new division.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Folks expect long warranties from all of these companies because they have offered the warranties for a long time. What was the expectation of Hyundai/Kia/etc. buyers for a 10-year warranty before it was offered? None. But now that there is a 10+ year history of this warranty, it has become an expectation--and difficult to reduce now.
Anyway... what difference does it make relative to this discussion why Hyundai originally offered a 10-year warranty? The facts as of today are that Hyundai offers high-quality, reliable cars, and offers one of the longest warranties in the business to back them. How can this be a bad thing for buyers who are looking for a luxury, or entry-lux, vehicle? How many of these buyers wish Hyundai would slash its warranty, so they would feel more confident about the reliability of the car and feel better about buying one? I think you are the only person thinking that.
How can you possibly know how much I know about Koreans and how they do business? That is unbelievably presumptuous.
I, an 89 Probe, a car that was developed by Mazda and originally intended to replace the Mustang . A decent little car I always thought and reasonably fun-to drive, the 4 banger being a Mazda engine, the V6 Ford built and one of the worst excuses ever for a 6 cylinder engine. Also owned a GLC another 'great little car', and a RX2 rotary but eventually lost interest in the marque as Ford slowly but surely infected the brand.
As it is loosely related to the topic at hand - Mazda did develop a decent and somewhat innovative 'luxury' car in the Millenia about the same time. The $30k Millenia never caught on - as a 'Mazda' it never was a 'luxury' car in the same way that the Toyota/Honda/Nissan derivatives were. Even over the several years that they wewre made, I can't imagine that Mazda (or Ford) ever recouped their development costs. Mazda didn't have nearly the quality name/ reputation that especially Toyota and Honda had, and the 'luxury' division 'Amati' idea was scrapped. The Millenia remained, however, for awhile a well kept secret that never was going to do much burdened with the nameplate.
Deja Vu?
I dunno about that.
The Miata outlived everyone that dared to even try to compete:
RIP MR2
RIP Capri
RIP MR2 Spyder
RIP S2000
RIP Solistice
RIP Sky
Its competitors could fill a graveyard.
The Mazda3 is one of the best compacts - based on a very fine euro Focus. The Mazda2 and Fiesta looks promising.
Of course those are the cars Mazda developed themselves. LOL
I remember the Amati idea well, in fact we owned a 95 626 V6 and a friend had a Millenia. I'm not convinced that Mazda put enough substance in that car. Besides the neat power telescoping steering wheel that moved out of your way, there was little to distinguish it from a 626 ES V6 (what we bought).
The base engines were the same. I think the Millenia made 5 more HP, 170 vs. 165 for the 626. Whoop-de-do.
The upgrade engine made 210hp, which probably didn't stand out enough.
Mazda suffered from an identity crisis, and IMHO that's why they didn't succeed.
You had the same company marketing a rotary engine, a 1.8l V6 (yes SIX cylinders), Atkinson cycle superchargers, affordable roadsters, and shared Ford platforms. Who were they? Zero consistency. How do you even market that?
To make matters worse, it sort or resembled the 626, it had less interior space than the Mazda Protege (95.5 cubic feet vs 94.8 IIRC), and the worst sin of all - FWD. The 929 was RWD so they could've done it right.
I don't think Hyundai repeated the same mistakes with the Genesis. RWD, tons of space, requisite V8 with substantially more power than the Azera plus it looks nothing like it.
The Equus looks like the Azera (not to mention the Elantra) and that will be a huge mistake if Hyundai doesn't restlye it before launching it here.
Well, the day when Hyundai doesn't need to price its products abnormally low has arrived. For example (all pricing from Edmunds.com):
2010 Hyundai Elantra SE AT (includes 16" alloys, cruise, keyless entry and ESC): MSRP $18,565, Invoice $17,833 (has $500 rebate)
Elantra Price, Invoice less rebate: $17,333
2010 Toyota Corolla LE AT (includes 16" alloys, cruise, keyless entry and ESC): $18,180, Invoice $16,630 (has $750 rebate)
Corolla Price, Invoice less rebate: $15,880
2010 Hyundai Sonata GLS AT: MSRP $20,620, Invoice $19,776 (has $1000 rebate)
Sonata Price, Invoice less rebate: $18,776
2010 Toyota Camry Base AT: MSRP $21,195, Invoice $19,659 (has $750 rebate)
Camry Price, Invoice less rebate: $18,909
So for Hyundai's two top selling cars, pricing (invoice less rebate) is extremely close to its biggest J3 competitor, and in the case of the Elantra, Hyundai is actually priced higher than the J3 car. And note that the rebates are also pretty close.
I do wonder if they can sustain these higher prices, or if sales will drop.
They may be getting away with it temporarily due to that offer they have right now. If they can quietly let that offer expire and keep these prices high, I bet their profits break records.
How does that saying go? Past performance is no guarantee of future something or other.
"The general impression one gets from our consumer reviews is that the Japanese companies aren't making 'em like they used to in the 1990s, when practically any Toyota or Honda was good for 150-200k trouble-free miles. Cars on the whole are more reliable today than ever before, but Japan no longer enjoys a commanding lead in this category."
Reputations Can Be Deceiving (Edmunds Daily)
can't obviously - but I have been there done that and I'll take that bet . In Ulsan for signifi cant periods of time albeit about 25 years ago. Did business over there and even worked over there. In large part a reason for my continuing interest in what the Koreans are doing.
FYI and because I think you will like this - you should know that the Koreans are a remarkable people with a helluva work ethic and an almost patriotic motivations to see their country succeed competitively. If only we Americans could pick up some of that.
This was in the shipbuilding business, one in which Hyundai would eventually become the largest in the world - in large part due to some governmental subsidies that allowed them to underprice their competition significantly back then. Ulsan, then a rather large but rather industrial city dominated by Hyundai's car assembly, steel fabrication, and ship building operations all along the coast just north of the City itself. Literally several (20?) miles of nothing but Hyundai, something that is still there, I believe. Korea incidentally is a country of conglomerates, Hyundai being the largest but also home to similar facilities from other names you've heard of by now - like Daewoo and Samsung.
This again was in the 80s, and about the same time the Excel was being sent over here. Over there they were 'Ponys' and were also LPG fueled - I seem to remember them RWD (but I may be mistaken). In any case, the cars were of extremely poor quality there as well - Hyundai would furnish us with Ponys to get around in but you never wanted to leave the yard simply because the cars were such deathtraps combined with a Korean driving philosohy which was 'unique' to say the least.
Has the '1960s' character of Korea changed? Can't imagine it hasn't - a whole bunch, but has the Korean oft times predatory business practices changed. Think not, because otherwise they may not have gotten to where they are today.
Wanna compare notes? :P
Maybe this explains a lot... your most recent experience with Korea was 25 years ago. Much has changed in 25 years.
No, Hyundais are no longer "cheap". They are going to have to depend now on quality, reliability, and competitive features and performance to sell. But they still have the warranty advantage.
The quality as well as the fit/finish in the Millenia was a definite step above standard Mazda fare, but it never was considered a 'luxury' car - why?
You must have glanced over it or ignored it entirely.
Millenia and Genesis are like night and day.
Millenia was FWD and shared an engine with the 626. It also had less interior space that Mazda's own Protege.
In reality, the Azera is closer in concept to the Millenia.
The Genesis is a whole different ball game.
I've owned 3 Mazdas and a Ford clone-of-a-Mazda, so I've followed their history closely for the past 2 decades. Calling the Genesis deja-vu is (sorry) ... naive.
we'll see about this one, because you are right - shortly it'll be those 'made in India 'Tatas or Chinense Cherrys (selling for a fraction of what Hyundais sell for) that will be forced into coming up with the industry's first quarter million mile/50 year warranty. My God, it'll be SRO, the autobuyer will not be able to resist those obviously high quality vehicles!
We will never know if the Millenia might have succeeded as an Amati, but we do know that it didn't as a Mazda. Hence the possible parallel :confuse:
It was fuel efficient, but they wanted premium fuel, so one cancels the other.
210hp was not all that special, really. 0-60 in 7.8 per wiki. Lame. 4 speed slushbox only.
FWD, smallish inside.
A bunt at best.
It was later, after Mazda figured out that $30k was more than what the consumer was willing to pay for a 'Mazda' that thety strted cheapening it up with things like 626/Ford engines.
They had the 2.5l V6 from the 626 all along, with just 5 more HP. Even in the very first model year (1995).
It was Mazda's Azera, not a Genesis, don't you think?
If a long warranty is a sign of an unreliable vehicle, as you keep insinuating... why don't the J3 drop their warranties to zero? "My gosh, it must be a reliable car--it doesn't even NEED a warranty!!" :P
Time will tell but I'm not sure what parallels you can draw today looking at Mazda's experience. There's precedent, but "everything" is different too. Mazda did well going zoom-zoom - maybe trying sell their fit/finish in the Millenia was simply a marketing failure.
How about a quick word association where you match the car to the catch-phrase?
Zoom-zoom
Relentless pursuit
Driver's car
_______________ fill in the blank for Hyundai?
Don't rock the boat man, just in case Krafcek is reading this. (he may well be)
I like long warranties. There is no downside to them. The only thing I like more than long warranties is longer warranties. My 5/60/10/100 warranty gives me a secure feeling. I've owned several German cars with short warranties, and the Hyundai warranty would have saved me a bundle. I don't even know why the motives of longer warranties are quesitoned. They are what they are... protection for the owner, and trustworthiness/sales for the manufacturer.
well you are right about one thing - I do not buy a car because it does or does not have any specific warranty. Indeed, as I said earlier, if a warranty is overly long (or FTM overly promoted) then I have to wonder why.
What I'll do instead is rely on what I think are unbiased reliability studies (CR for example) AND my own experience to buy what i think is best - warranties will have nothing to do with it. And, furthermore, the last thing I'm ever going to do is spend even more money extending a warranty. If it wasn't a waste of money, they wouldn't be selling them
If I go out and buy a LS tomorrow I'd be very confident that it would be the best car I've ever owned in almost all respects, Asd it should be, it's 60 or 7-0 grand! If I instead can be sold into something like a Genesis sedan then I'm not so sure - for good reason, the history (and the sophistication) is just not there.
Thank you! Don't rock the boat! I'll be needing a car pretty soon, and Hyundai presently tops my list. If they go changing stuff, I'll have to go and do a big comparison matrix again.