Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1189190192194195235

Comments

  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    If you're budget is so tight that $50/month is significant, then you should not be buying a new car in the $20K range, but a 3-4 yr old Civic or 5 yr old Accord for $10K.

    As far as manual transmissions, sure a lot of cars can come equipped with a manual, but how many do you actually see on a dealer's lot? I was looking for a Corolla with a 5spd and couldn't find anything in the dealer's 5 state region, and all I wanted was cruise control with the 5spd. I'm guessing that folks looking for 5spd in mid-sized sedans will have to go with a bare-bones version, unless they plan on ordering one.
  • meateatermeateater Member Posts: 123
    Have they not seen the latest reliabil reports on Fusion?Milan?MKZ?

    How can a 'reliability report' on a one year old car stack up against the proven track record of a CamCord?

    Get back to us when the F/M/Z has 100,000+ miles on it and lets review the 'reliablity report' again.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I think the guy was responding to the post saying that if you buy anything but a CamCord than your car will break down before 25K miles, which is obviously an incorrect statement. It's true that reliability can best be judged in the long-term, but reliability isn't the only factor in car buying decisions for everyone. Some folks would rather drive a more unique, sporty, and interesting car even if they're one of the early dots on the statistical reliability chart.

    I'm on 40,000 with my Ford Freestyle with zero problems, my previous car was a '99 Mercury Cougar whose only problem before 100,000 miles was an alternator replacement, and my car before that was a '91 Ford Escort that had zero problems before 100,000 miles. All three of these cars were in their first model year, or for the Escort and Cougar, the first model year of a major redesign.

    Sometimes people get too hung up on reliability. Yes in general Honda/Toyota are more reliable than Ford/GM, but in any ranking, someone has to be higher than another, even if the differnces between them aren't that great. I'd be more interested to know the actual differences in repair costs and time in the shop between a 5 yr old Accord and Taurus for example. Yes I know that the reliability is better for the Accord, but if "better" only means one less trip to the shop in 5 years and a repair cost difference of $200, that "difference" isn't all the much, even if in the rankings the Accord is still higher.

    Instead of looking at reliability statistics/rankings, I've looked at the costs of extended warranties. You'd think that extended warranties for Honda/Toyota would be a lot cheaper than for Ford/GM, but from what I've seen they're not. So if a company is going to charge $1000 for a 7yr 100,000 warranty on an Accord and for the exact same coverage charge $2000 for a Taurus, then I'd say that the warranty company figures that the Taurus will cost them a lot more since they're supposed to be so unreliable as compared to the Accord. But in fact, both warranties will cost about the same, which makes me think that the warranty company at least has calculated that the repair costs will be the same for the Accord and Taurus, which in turn makes me think that the reliability must not be that much different.
  • w9cww9cw Member Posts: 888
    Bob - Interesting post. Not only should one look at reliability, but total overall operating cost, and investment. For example, everyone knows that the Ford Taurus depreciates like crazy, especially due to the fleet allocation. That's what makes them such a good buy on the used market.

    Most financial advisors tell you that new cars are not smart purchases, rather good used cars are the best bet. The President of our local bank, whose advanced degrees include finance and a MBA, has never bought a new car in his life!

    Getting back to the Taurus, lately in this area off-lease 2006 Taurus' can be bought for less than $10K, some as low as $8,500 with only 9,000 miles on the clock. I will wager that whoever buys these will have reasonably trouble-free miles for 100K miles. When you look at total cost of investment and operation, this would be hard to beat by any other vehicle.

    On the other hand, why anyone would want to purchase a used CamCord is beyond me due to their low depreciation rate - in this case, you're much better of buying a new one, but at a great price.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    This is absurd reasoning.

    Your analysis contends the cars are the same except for the repair costs. Nothing could be further than the truth. My Taurus was a disappointment, whereas BOTH Accords (and the Camry my wife owned) were excellent.

    Why not just buy the better car from the start? Then you have years of satisfaction instead of years of remorse.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Boy, look who is calling the kettle black here!?? Just like you try to impose your values on others too?? Saying the Accord/Camry are $2,000 - $4,000 better than a Fusion/Sonta/Milan or whichever? Who ever doesn't buy an Accord or Camry is getting a far inferior vehicle.. Anything but an Accord or Camry and your going to break down after 25,000 miles.. If your car isn't an Accord or Camry your reliability is terrible.. I can go on and on with this one...

    This is such a ridiculous paragraph that it's hardly worth wasting bandwidth to reply to it. I never tried to impose any decision on anyone here. What I have often said is that all the vehicles are good choices for one reason or another.

    .. The Sonata is a screaming bargain and is likely to prove itself as one of the best over the next 5 years.
    .. The Fu-lans are Ford's best offerings in a decade and are likely very very good. But Ford Corporate made significant errors in the rollout of these vehicles which could make the vehicle look bad in comparison to the others in this segment.
    .. The new Aura and Malibu are beautiful in initial impressions.
    .. It is not wrong morally, ethically or financially to buy a Camry, Accord or Altima! It's only a personal choice nothing more.
    .. The amount you want to spend on a vehicle is your own business no one else's. My own preference is for 2-4 y.o. pre-owned midsized cars, the Prius notwithstanding.
    That's it.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    This is absurd reasoning.

    Your analysis contends the cars are the same except for the repair costs. Nothing could be further than the truth. My Taurus was a disappointment, whereas BOTH Accords (and the Camry my wife owned) were excellent.


    I guess you missed the point of my post. My point had to do with the differences in reliability and long-term cost of, in my example, a 5 yr old Taurus and 5 yr old Accord. In your personal example you had bad luck with Ford, but in my example I had good luck. That's why I looked at extended warranty costs as another way to compare reliability. I don't have time to individually poll thousands of people for opinions like yours and mine.

    If you want to look at another example, the costs of an extended warranty for a new Fusion and Accord are about the same, so that's just another way of gauging possible differences in future repair costs.

    By the way, my parents drive a 5yr old Taurus and they haven't had any problems with it. One of the main reasons they like it is because of the front row bench seat...yes old fashioned, but you can seat 6 in a Taurus in a pinch, plus it makes it feel very roomy in front without the huge center consoles found in just about every car out there.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Another source for reliability issues, comparing 2000-2006 Taurus to the 2003-2006 Accords. This info might be considered biasd FOR the Accord since they're newer models, but here it is anyway.

    http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2569/act/usedc- - - - - - - - arreviewreliability/

    2003-06 Honda Accord: Reliability (you can read the details online, but here is the list of areas)

    Trouble Spots
    Airbags:
    Check-engine light:
    Electrical problem:
    Engine mounts:
    Sunroof/moonroof:
    Timing belt:
    Wipers:

    Item Name Repair Cost
    A/C Compressor $685
    Alternator $450
    Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $4,205
    Brakes $420
    Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $680
    Constant Velocity Joints $1,350
    Exhaust System $740
    Radiator $600
    Shocks and/or Struts $2,495
    Timing Chain or Belt $195
    TOTAL: $11,820

    http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2374/act/usedc- - - - - - - - arreviewreliability/

    2000-06 Ford Taurus: Reliability
    Trouble Spots
    Audio system:
    Fuel odors:
    Heater core:
    Vehicle shake:

    Item Name Repair Cost
    A/C Compressor $405
    Alternator $535
    Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $1,120
    Brakes $240
    Constant Velocity Joints $990
    Exhaust System $300
    Radiator $405
    Shocks and/or Struts $1,100
    Timing Chain or Belt $180
    TOTAL: $5,275

    Based on this information, it looks like a Taurus not only has less problems, but the cost of repairs is about 1/2 to the Accord. Even accounting for a huge error rate, it's hard to say how this information could show that a Accord is more reliable than a Taurus, or that the repair costs are less. And the recall history is about the same if you compare from 2003-2006 for both vehicles. In fact, if I used Car X and Car Y instead of putting Accord and Taurus, I'm sure everyone would have said that car Y was the better pick. Perception can really affect reality.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Perception can affect reality, indeed. But in the time that the 96-06 Taurus went without significant change, the Accord changed body styles - including engines, transmissions, interior, exterior, safety features - TWICE. And added a Hybrid.

    The '82 GM X-car derivatives (Century, 6000, Celebrity, Cutlass Ciera) were pretty troublesome in their early years, but by the time that style Century was finally put to pasture in 1996, it was one of the most trouble-free midsizers around. 15 years of 'lessons learned' can have that effect, you know?

    ~alpha
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    So you're saying that a 2000 and later Taurus is more reliable than a 2003 and later Accord because Accords keep changing a lot of components? If so, that doesn't say much for Accords.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "Anything but an Accord or Camry and your going to break down after 25,000 miles"

    No use wasting bandwidth on this quote, its been deliberately posted by Scape portending that it comes from a Honda/Toy/Niss fan, to get replies like yours. I haven't seen any poster except Scape say this kind of nonsense. Its all in his mind.

    Few examples:

    When the media is negative to Ford - It is biased
    When the media is positive to Ford - It has begun to see the light
    When Ford closes plants in the US, laying off thousands of workers - its good for the country
    When Hon/Hyu/Toy make new plants here, giving jobs to thousands of Americans, its bad for the country (because the profits go to Japan - according to him)
    When Ford assembles cars outside the US and sells them here, its capitalism and good business sense.
    When some other automaker (Non-American) does the same, it a 'Foreign' automaker
    When Scape spends 20k for a Fusion, its money well spent
    When someone else spends 22k for a Hon/Toy, its a waste of money (its not a waste of money if Scape could as well have bought a Sonata for 2k less)

    One thing from all of Scape's posts:

    EVERYONE SHOULD BUY A FUSION/MILAM/MKZ, else you are wasting your money (if you paid more) or not getting a good enough car (if you paid less money)
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The Taurus was an 80's design and was very basic and eventually very solid. It had 20 yrs of tweaking behind it.

    All new vehicles after 2000 are essentially rolling electronic devices. All are much more complicated than their ancestors in the last century. The cost of components is higher.

    Simple example: Electronic Throttle Control with intelligence and Electronically Controlled Transmissions with intelligence. Neither existed in the 80's or early 90's. While making an adjustment to these can be as easy as doing a software flash.. replacing them is similar to relacing your laptop or PDA. Current vehicles have as many as 15-20 of these throughout. They replaced mechanical operations with electronic ones which make the vehicle lighter and in some ways simpler but the replacements ( with labor ) can be wallet destroyers.
  • w9cww9cw Member Posts: 888
    03accordman wrote: "When someone else spends 22k for a Hon/Toy, its a waste of money (its not a waste of money if Scape could as well have bought a Sonata for 2k less)"

    I recently was given a quote, including TTL, for a 2007 Accord SE I4 automatic for $21,700. I think it's a good deal on a great car, but comparing an 2007 Sonata GLS with equivalent options, it's not only $2K less than the Accord, but $5K less at our local Hyundai dealer ($16,811 including TTL to be exact), and that's including Sonata's VSC which the Accord doesn't offer with the I4. Although I'm a fan of Honda, and have owned a number of Hondas, a $5K differential certainly does tend to get my attention.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    a $5K differential certainly does tend to get my attention.

    Of course it should! It got mine too when I was car shopping. The way I looked at it (and my dad did too when guiding me) is that a buyer can spend $18k and be unhappy with their car, or $21k and be quite happy and completely satisfied. If I had been completely satisfied with the Sonata, I'd have one in the garage. The Honda is what rang my bell and made me happy, so I'm driving an Accord, for yes, more money than the Sonata. Spending $18k on something I didn't want would be the waste of money, in my eyes.

    That being said, I'm not trying to say nobody wants a Sonata, because that just can't be true. They are handsome cars with great warranties, and engines that are competitive if not class leading. I'm not knocking your choice or saying any other buyers have wasted their money if they are happy with what they bought and paid what the market supports for their vehicle (Don't pay above invoice for a Hyundai, or above invoice for a Honda). If you got what you wanted, you haven't been wasteful. If you got what you wanted for less than I paid for what I wanted (because we wanted different things) then more power to you!

    It's not wasteful, though.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "Although I'm a fan of Honda, and have owned a number of Hondas, a $5K differential certainly does tend to get my attention."

    Sorry if I was not clear, the 2k difference was between a Fusion and Sonata, not an Accord and Sonata, and a hypothetical one in any case
  • w9cww9cw Member Posts: 888
    grad - I haven't made a decision as yet, actually leaning toward the Accord at the moment, but I will before January 1. The particular Accord SE that I'm looking at is built at Honda's Sayama, Japan facility, rather than the Ohio plant - if that makes any difference or not?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Supposedly, the quality of cars to come from Japan is supposed to be higher than those in the American assembly plants. My 1996 and 2006 Accords were both made in Ohio, and neither has problems.

    My dad's 2003 Accord (that got smashed, so he got a 2005, now has a Civic) was built in Japan, and had more rattles than any of our other cars, but that could be chalked up to it being a first year for the new design. It also had the radio display go out on him.

    I don't think there is a lot of difference between the quality, personally, but there are a lot of die-hard fans who would say go with the Japanese made car.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    If you're budget is so tight that $50/month is significant, then you should not be buying a new car in the $20K range, but a 3-4 yr old Civic or 5 yr old Accord for $10K.

    Or if your a cash buyer becuase you don't want to finance, 3-5k would mean selling another stock.

    As far as manual transmissions, sure a lot of cars can come equipped with a manual, but how many do you actually see on a dealer's lot? I was looking for a Corolla with a 5spd and couldn't find anything in the dealer's 5 state region, and all I wanted was cruise control with the 5spd. I'm guessing that folks looking for 5spd in mid-sized sedans will have to go with a bare-bones version, unless they plan on ordering one.

    So far I have been able to find what I wanted with a manual. Its interesting you mention Toyota in your example, I think this is especially true with them and one of the reasons they aren't real high on my list. Also, if you do go with the Corolla (especially the base model) I HIGHLY recommend upgrading the suspension to include a front and rear sway bar like every other car in its class.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    The Taurus was an 80's design and was very basic and eventually very solid. It had 20 yrs of tweaking behind it.

    All new vehicles after 2000 are essentially rolling electronic devices. All are much more complicated than their ancestors in the last century. The cost of components is higher.


    Okay, then here are the figures for mid-90's Accord/Taurus. There still seems to be quite a few problems for the Accord, and the overall repair costs are still $1000 greater, but my point isn't the a Taurus is BETTER, more reliable, or cheaper to own then an Accord, but only that claims that the Accord (either today or in the mid-90s) is light-years ahead in reliability as compared to a lowly Taurus aren't necessarily true.

    So today when looking at the Fusion vs Accord and people start saying how much greater the quality and reliability are for the Accord and how it will be a big mistake to buy a Fusion because of the cost of future repairs, those same people would have said the same thing 5-10 years ago when comparing the Taurus to the Accord and might have been just as wrong then as they are today.

    If someone wants to show me reliability stats to the contrary that would be great. And not red/black circles or JD Powers reports, but actual stats on the frequency and cost of repairs for a given model over a given number of years.

    http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2048/act/usedc- - arreviewreliability/
    1994-97 Honda Accord: Reliability
    Trouble Spots
    Audio system:
    Automatic transmission:
    Brakes:
    Dashboard lights:
    Engine noise:
    Fuel gauge: Manual transmission:
    Oil leak:
    Vehicle noise:
    Vehicle noise:

    Item Name Repair Cost
    A/C Compressor $530
    Alternator $380
    Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $1,055
    Brakes $250
    Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $550
    Constant Velocity Joints $670
    Exhaust System $540
    Radiator $485
    Shocks and/or Struts $545
    Timing Chain or Belt $350
    TOTAL $5,335

    1990-95 Ford Taurus: Reliability
    http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2043/act/usedc- - arreviewreliability/
    Trouble Spots
    Blower motor:
    Hard starting:
    Oil leak:
    Suspension problems:
    Tire wear:
    Tire wear:
    Vehicle noise:
    Item Name Repair Cost

    A/C Compressor $455
    Alternator $440
    Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $930
    Brakes $230
    Constant Velocity Joints $505
    Exhaust System $365
    Radiator $525
    Shocks and/or Struts $495
    Timing Chain or Belt $210
    TOTAL $4,155
  • booyahcramerbooyahcramer Member Posts: 172
    Are you gonna tell us now, because of this one 'study' you've found, that the Taurus is more reliable than the Accord? I'm sure (give em time) others that frequent this board will bury you with similar 'studies' that show the Accord the hands down winner over the Taurus.

    My experiences tell me the Taurus was an aweful car and that my Accord was fantastic. End of study. Dismissed.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    What point are you making? I don't understand the "stats" you're pulling. The 90-95 Taurus is the same as the 86 Taurus, just as the '06 Taurus is the same as the '96 Taurus.

    My point was that its easier for designs that haven't changed in years to experience lower rates of reliability related issues, since nothing has changed and earlier design/production issue have been rectified.

    Try holding SOME variable contstant. For example, since the 94 to 97 Accord was redesigned FOR the '94 MY, and ran for 4 MY, why not compare it to the '96 Taurus (point of redesign) and extend it 4 MY?

    Also, I think it ironic that you're calling the information you've provided "statistics". How is simply citing a "Reliability Trouble Spot" a statistic? Can you speak to how these areas were determined to be a "Reliability Trouble Spot", because most of us may not know. And repair costs aren't statistics, they're data points.

    ~alpha
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    Wow - are we really seriously challenging the reliablity of the Accord vs. the Taurus?

    I had my Accord 4 years. Lets see - my repair costs were.......$0.00

    I had a Taurus 2 years. Wore me out. I traded it cause I didn't want to fix the slipping transmission nor the coolant leak that couldn't be found (always smelled coolant around that thing) and took a major bath in doing it.

    Never another Ford.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Are you gonna tell us now, because of this one 'study' you've found, that the Taurus is more reliable than the Accord?

    I realize my posts are pretty long, so I'll just NO, I'm not saying that the Taurus is more reliable. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any stats to show that the Accord is more reliable by the way I define it: lower number of repairs and lower overall repair cost. What I'm using as "evidence" to show that the future repair costs between an Accord and Taurus (just as an example, you can replace Taurus with Fusion if you want) may be closer than people think are:

    1) the fact that the extended warranty costs are the same and my reasoning is that it should cost LESS for an extended warranty for cars that are more reliable, while in fact, cars that are popularly known as being more "reliable" (Accord) for example, doesn't have extended warranties any cheaper than any other car.

    2) While the web link I posted isn't a scientific study, on a general level it shows historical repair problem areas and repair costs and I'm more interested in buying a car with the least problems areas and lower repair cost than I am buying a car with the most red circles in CR.

    What does it really mean for car outranking another car in CR or JD Powers? Does this tell you how much more it will cost in repair or how many more trips to the repair show you'll have on average for a given number of years??

    Anyway, I was just trying to think outside of the box of "reliability/quality" because all that's in the box is CR, JD Power, and personal car history stories and for me, none of those 3 are sufficient.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I don't believe in using these statistics in my decision making. But if I did believe in using them, CRs data would have the most influence. And if you would be comfortable in using autoguide.com in influencing a purchasing decision, you should definitely cite them. But I would not use this site for purchase decisions and thus the stats to me are meaningless.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    That's fair...but if 3 our of 100 transmission breaks in an Accord vs 4 out of 100 for the Fusion for example and this is what gives the Fusion clear circle and the Accord a Red circle in CR, BUT it costs twics as much to repair the Accords transmission, I'd rather have the Fusion based on repair cost and you'd rather have the Accord. So would you rather have a 4% chance of paying $2000 vs a 3% chance of paying $4000...you decide.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    cash buyer becuase you don't want to finance, 3-5k would mean selling another stock
    suppose that's one way to look at it - the other, of course would be that depending on how much you actually use the car and how long you keep it, you will recover a good portion of that money, when you trade it in on your next car. A 2003 Accord will be worth approx. 4 grand more at trade in than the Sonata, using 2000 models the difference shrinks to $2300.00. Figures from kbb.com, trade-in values - the bottom line how much is that Accord really costing you - maybe a couple of grand spread over 7 years? Works out to $25 a month (or $50 if you want to include the time value of the money (either in your savings account or on a loan). As I said, it would certainly be worth it to me to be happy driving the Honda than the Sonata.
    And the Sonata seems to be a damn fine little car, make the alternate a Fusion, G6, Malibu or something like that, and the amount I would be willing to pay to avoid them would double!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the fact that extended warranty costs are about the same would be a indication that your out-of-pocket to keep that Taurus running is comparable. But, if you consider for example , the actual costs of repairs (what the warranties are based on) at double; that would also mean that the Taurus is needing repairs twice as often, which, I think is how things like CRs ratings are based, not on cost of repairs but frequency of them. To me, anyway, is not as much that my car is needing to go into the shop, as it is the inconvenience and trouble it gave me because it does. That is where I think a main difference is between 'Japan, Inc.' and 'Detroit Inc.'
  • robbiegrobbieg Member Posts: 346
    I agree with you completely about buying a used Honda. Since Hondas really don't lose their value they are not a good buy used. My local used car dealer doesn't buy them at the auction because he can't sell them due to the fact that the comparable Acura is only a little bit more and his customers would much rather drive an Acura than a Honda. The Taurus on the other hand is a good buy used because they can be had for next to nothing.

    Also, if you look on ebay there are far more one year old American cars and truck for sale than comporable foreign models, does anyone know why this is?
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Once again, when the car is in drive I have no issues..
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Kind of like your song and dance about how cheap the interior of the Fusion/Milan are? or how the hood doesn't close the whole way? You don't get it, I paid less for a car that I am totally happy with.. I paid less than you, I saw past all the image thing...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I guess I'm among the few who like to set the stereo and climate how I like it before I get moving into traffic. Saves some "eyes-off-the-road-time."
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Kind of like your song and dance about how cheap the interior of the Fusion/Milan are? or how the hood doesn't close the whole way? You don't get it, I paid less for a car that I am totally happy with.. I paid less than you, I saw past all the image thing...

    Show me where I mentioned the hood not closing all the way please, I'd love to see it. If you can find it, I'll eat my hat.

    Just because I don't like the DESIGN of an interior, doesn't mean I think it's cheap. You said it, not me. Also, how does me referring to an interior design suddenly make me a buyer of "image?" My point was this: I could have gotten a Fusion with similar features to my Accord for less money. I'm not disputing that. It isn't the features that make the car; the Fusion would be a car that was unsatistying to me because I feel the interior design looks dated, and is not ergonomically well-designed. Would it have been smarter for me to save $2,000 to buy a car I don't like? Is that what you want me to say?

    If it is, then you should have bought a Sonata - same basic features as your car for less money. Why did you buy a Ford over the Hyundai, could it be IMAGE? Maybe not. Maybe you liked the design of your car better, or the way it handled, or the engine, or something else about the car made the Fusion worth more to you than a "comparable" Sonata. Which is it?

    Don't put words in my mouth, scape. It isn't polite, and it takes away your credibility.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Bob, you did it now.. No way can a Taurus be less to own or more reliable than an Accord!! This cannot be so!!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Bob, you did it now.. No way can a Taurus be less to own or more reliable than an Accord!! This cannot be so!! *

    Yeah it can, the Taurus was practically unchanged for 10 years, it better well have all the bugs worked out ten years later.

    *Sarcasm noted
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    if it costs less to fix a Taurus, which it generally will, with antiquated drivetrains etc. - more things must be needing to be fixed, if the total dollars spent on repairs are even close - making the Taurus less reliable! Simple math!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Well, our neighbors have had the same 1993 Taurus since it was new. Their 16 year old daughter now drives it (she hates it, says she feels like grandmaw!) but the transmission is starting to whine somewhat when she takes off - not good. When they were thinking about selling it to get her another car (it was worth very little, so they took it back off the market) it had 145,000 miles on it. I imagine it's around 160k now. It hasn't been a bad car by any means, however, and the family bought a used 2000-2003 model (not sure what year exactly) Taurus when she started driving, so they must have liked it.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I think you miss the point - if we believe that it costs a given amount of dollars to keep a Taurus (or any other car) running for a period of time and it costs the same amount to keep the Accord running (extended warranty costs would indicate that this is true) - and the repairs are generally twice as expensive on the Honda as on the Ford, the Ford MUST BE in the shop twice as often to spend the same amount of money. If the transmission repair numbers cited are right ($4200 vs. $1100.00) then the Ford would be in the shop for transmissions almost 4 times, while the Honda once - an extreme example.
    Although I'm confident that your neighbor's Taurus has needed a significant number of repairs over 14 years and 145k (this would be true of most all cars because it's not just the mileage but also the age). We all have good and bad stories about cars - like my 92 Nissan Maxima that had 280k on it until the tranny crapped out (my fault for not keeping it routinely serviced) and never went back to a dealer for any reason. Does that in itself make the Maxima a good car, or that Taurus you're talking about a good car - NOT NECESSARILY.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I know what you are saying - its a cheap-to-fix car, even though it needs repairs more often than an Accord, which makes it even in costs, and less reliable altogeter (more time in the shop than a Honda, for similar money to repair after X - years). Isn't this your point?
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    yep, and a point to consider unless you enjoy tow trucks and reading newspapers in the service lounges.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Oh, most definitely. I LOVE being stranded, don't you?

    Actually, I wouldn't know. I've never been left stranded by my 169k mile 11 y.o. Accord except when I was run off the road and ate guardrail (doing $3,100 damage to the car and bending the frame), and even then, I drove the car to the body shop. I waited on the police though, so that was the only real time I've sat on the shoulder of the road.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Let's say a guy is shopping for a car, and looking at Camcords. If he suddenly finds out that the reliability of a Taurus is comparable, is he going to change his mind, and buy a Taurus? Not likely. Just as a guy shopping for BMW 5 series is not going to buy an Accord because he finds out the reliability is better. People will buy the car they want, without much regard to reliability ratings 90% of the time.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Well, I would think that the Taurus has little going for it except that it is a "decent car." In fact, if you look up "decent car" in the dictionary, I think you'll find "Taurus" as a synonym. It's plain, not real quick, not real efficient, roomy enough, rides ok, is reliable enough, handles safely, and has features you expect standard in a ten year old car.

    In the market for a plain, unexciting car? Try the new ten year old Taurus!

    image
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    elroy5- don't know if I bite on that one - I would be willing to wager that CRs reliability ratings are probably the single most influential outside sourced statistic to the American consumer.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Are we back to this foolishness about being "stranded"? C'mon, it is very rare for anyone to get stranded in any modern car, no matter what brand it is...especially if they keep up with maintenance. To listen to some of the Honota fans, you'd expect to pass several people with broken down american make cars every day.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Also, if you look on ebay there are far more one year old American cars and truck for sale than comporable foreign models, does anyone know why this is?

    Because the rental fleets are mostly American makes and that is a big source of one year old cars.
  • chevy598chevy598 Member Posts: 162
    The difference between quality numbers is so little now, that for the most part, it doesn't matter whether you buy the best ranked or the worst ranked.
    Example, brand A has an initial quality of 125 problems per 100 vehicles and brand B has an initial quality of 118 problems per 100 vehicles. There's no real difference in quality between brands A & B, its so small that if it were a bug you couldn't see it with your "naked eye".
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    statistically I would be willing to bet you that the most likely cars to 'strand you' are the ones that are most technologically sophisticated - a condition of a computer somewhere 'thinking' something is wrong when it isn't. Can you say BMW? But certainly not a condition of Tauruses (Tauri?) and the like - which, for the time being, is to their advantage.
  • jimmy81jimmy81 Member Posts: 170
    You are aware that the Taurus is no longer being made -right? Not much of an advantage.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    nice discussion I started ;)

    Don't forget, I was just using the Taurus vs Accord as an example. But since no one has yet posted any URLs with any other studies, I guess we're still sticking to stories.

    Of course I'd never buy a 4dr sedan anyway. I'd rather buy a station wagon/CUV or whatever they're calling them today because they're so much more versatile than a sedan with a 14CuFt trunk. The Taurus wagon...mmmmm....now there's a sexy car!

    Actually I drive a Ford Freestyle and Honda Fit, so I can officially bash both companies :P
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Actually I used to have a Taurus (1987) and it stranded me more than once.
This discussion has been closed.