Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Now, I find the heater element on the windshield on the Subaru under the wiper blades to be extraordinarily useful in the winter. You can't get that feature on any car in this segment.
[Perhaps that is why every-other-car you see in Wyoming and Colorado is a Subaru
Don't understand why 'value' or even 'budget' are necessarily even used in the same sentence as 'cheaper to buy' or 'lower cost'. That, is certainly a faulty assumption. :confuse:
This is your belief, not a known fact.
In addition, even if true for some (such as those who trade cars every two years or those who overpay for "Funatas"), it is most certainly not true for all.
These ducts are used when the front seats' ventilation has air/heat coming out of the floor.
you can choose to believe the Intellichoices (or Edmunds') of the world that do put real numbers to these kind of things!
you can simply trade in your Camcordima vs a Funata and see why yourself!
One of my pet-peeves on these forums is when one member attributes a position to another member that the member never took. This is particularly problematic when, as is often the case, the position assigned is one that is absurd.
I don't need to come to anyone's defense here. But, I don't think anyone on this forum has ever said that "no other manufacturer can build a proper engine...only Honda."
We have some fairly reasonably-minded people on this forum. Sometimes that makes for boring conversation. But, so be it. IMHO, its better not to develop a controversy, and put forum members on the defense, by assigning positions to them that they never took. ** It has happened a bunch on the Accord forums over the last week and it creates dozens of posts that are interesting only to the 2-3 people engaged in the debate.
Sorry -- I need to give back Pat his host's job. . .
** Steps off of soap box**
Reread #7612. The assumption is yours that I said the Aura would last longer than the Honda. I could never say that, outright. I said if materials and maintenance were the same...
What I was saying, and didn't think it needed further explanation, is that the engine could last years longer, meaning, compared to the same engine turning several million more rev's in it's life time.
It never fails to amaze me how so many car (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Ford, Chevy or Yugo) owners will go to any length to defend their brand against a perceived attack, It's like Killer Bee's going after a dog because they think it is going to attach the hive :confuse:
It's been fun though
I also think it's good from time to time to set out some reality checks. You make some valid points.
Actually, I think everyone here is reasonably-minded. We're just passionate about that which we are reasonable. :P
What I was saying, and didn't think it needed further explanation, is that the engine could last years longer, meaning, compared to the same engine turning several million more rev's in it's life time.
If you do not actually believe this statement is true, why say it? Even if the maintenance is the same, they are very different engines. You can make a lot of claims when you use IF this, and IF that, in every sentence.
I keep hearing Honda engines are very different. How so? What we are comparing are two internal combustion engines. Both are V6 with similiar displacement. WHAT shoots down the higher rev arguement. Advanced Honda engineering? OK, like what? To me when you put more stress on an engine for example, forced induction, there is increased wear thus less engine life.
You don't think I was talking about the same engine?
How about if I said if you drove your Honda with a rev limiter on the ignition that kept the engine below 5000 RPM and I drove An exact copy of that car built on the same day, in the same factory(s) and mine was limited at 7000 RPM.
We drove the same roads in the same weather, same traffic, etc. and used the same oil changed at the same time, in the same shop, that your engine and mine would last exactly the same number of miles/years?
Well without spelling it out in every detail that is what I was saying.
I don't have the history to back up a statement that the Cadillac 3.6 L engine will last for 2 years or 10. That it will last 50K or 500K miles. Thus I couldn't and didn't make such a statement. It was all the assumptions make because so many what to defend the Honda engine without trying to understand what has been written.
If you had read what I wrote you would see that I have stated the Honda has a very reliable engine and Honda's are very reliable cars. But as soon as I say that the Aura is good, or maybe better than a Honda, in anything, the defenders all rise to the call.
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?
Difficult to say unless I tested them all. However, the Sebring I recently bought has a very nice one, IMHO. I just set every knob to "A" and it takes care of the rest.
I've noticed that the fan doesn't blow very hard the first minute or two when starting out on cold days. That keeps cold air from blowing on me. On warm days above 70F or so it directs more air out the instrument panel vents for more direct cooling on me. There's just nothing so far about it that I don't like.
What don't you like about the Mazda6 climate control?
I personally think that purchase price has a lot to do with "budget/value, " and I don't think it's nonsense to suggest that relationship. If one can purchase a mid-sized car for $5000-6000 less than another, and both cars have equivalent utility to that buyer, then the less expensive car has a huge head start in terms of total cost of ownership. When such a car, e.g. Fusion or Sonata, is also one of the most reliable in its class (e.g. per Consumer Reports), has a longer warranty than the more expensive cars in its class, and has similar fuel economy to the more expensive cars, then the main difference in cost of ownership is resale value. A $5000-6000 initial gap (and not including extra costs for taxes and interest, or opportunity costs) is very hard to make up just in resale value, especially if you keep a car more than a couple of years.
If you think that's nonsense and a faulty assumption, that's fine. But I assure you that there is considerable thought, research, and experience behind my opinion.
Or the Toyota 22r. Or the MBZ 5 cylinder diesel. Or the BMW ETA in the 3 and 5 series.
Of course, this is true - and the longer anybody keeps anything the lesser the difference in residual values. Therefore, over 10 years let's say, the Funata not only saved you the $5 grand but also the interest cost of financing the extra money over some period of time. BUT, given that the average new car buyer only keeps (or leases a car) for 3 or 4 years, then the difference in those residual values is significant enough to make the Camcordima a better 'value' if a 'better value' is to be defined as 'total cost to own'. At least this is what those folks (Intellichoice/Edmunds) that study these kind of things say. Why, if this is not true - is it as cheap or cheaper to lease an Accord for example (3-4 year lease) as it can be to lease a Fusion that the leasing company is going to pay a few thousand less for? The word is VALUE. It's a simple concept really except for those folks that seem to equate a cheap initial price with 'cheap to own'. Now If the Fusion,for example, becomes the first Ford branded car in recent history to hold its value well because it becomes a hot commodity as a used car for reliability reasons, then that would certainly help to make the car a possibly better value than the Accord. Historically this has not been the case - the Camcords, in particular, lead the pack not only in higher initial price but also in lowest cost to own. A contradiction - not exactly.
Leasing is a bad example, IMHO. The leases on the Fusion and the Mazda6 were both cheaper than the lease on the Accord. The Accord was more out of pocket and a higher payment. This becomes even more true when you take into account the actual transaction price for me to purchase the Accord. One of the reasons I went with the Accord is because I wasn't planning on having the car long, so hopefully it will maintain its value well.
It's also important to view these general TCOs through a personal filter. For example, suppose someone decided to go for the 0% interest over 5 years plus $500 rebate on the Sonata instead of the $1000 general rebate. According to Edmund's TCO numbers, they'd save about $3500 in financing costs over five years, at the expense of $500 less rebate up front--so about $3000 additional savings (4 cents a mile) over five years. What if in addition they already own a Hyundai and get the $500 loyalty rebate? Now it's close to another 5 cents a mile lower in TCO.
So the moral is, don't blindly trust the general TCO numbers. Be sure they fit your individual circumstances.
Yes the more expenisve car can sometimes be a better value for short-term owners. I would no rely on edmunds or intellichoice to determine this as the figures they use are often erroneous.
Anyway, when this is the case (that the more expensive car is cheaper to own) there is usually a crossover point where the cheaper car becomes cheaper overall, as you have acknoledged. So then, if this is an important factor to someone, the information needed is where is the crossover point and how long do they plan to keep the car.
If for example the crossover is at 3, then for the person who trades in 2 the answer to the question "which will cost me less?" is different from the person who keeps the car 5 years. For those like me who keep cars 10+ years, we can be pretty sure that we will pass any crossover point.
If the average new car is traded at 3-4 years, this does not mean that every buyer does this. In fact it does not even mean that the average person does it, since one who trades every 3 years will buy 4 cars in 12 years while I may buy only one in 12 years. The average car bought by the two of us will have been owned for 4.8 years (4 owned for 3 years and one for 12 = 4.8 years on average) while the average ownership time for the two of us will be 7.5 years (one person owns for 3 and the other for 12 years).
and that is really all I'm saying here: the Camcordima is not necessarily any more expensive to own or any less of a 'value' than possibly even that Sonata which definitely costs a whole lot less to buy.
And yes, if you examine some of these 'cost-to-own' numbers they can overstate initial purchase price especially among those cars that tend to be discounted heavily. The Mazda 6's TCO was based on a purchase price at invoice but a few months into the 06-07 models the car was being sold for a coupla thousand UNDER invoice (something that the Edmunds' (or Mazda) can not anticipate) - but also something that would reduce TCO if (and that's the problem) the car maintains its resale value. My contention, in this case would be, of course, that any 'fire sale' pricing hurts resale values in a similar way so therefore TCO is largely uneffected.
How about if I said if you drove your Honda with a rev limiter on the ignition that kept the engine below 5000 RPM and I drove An exact copy of that car built on the same day, in the same factory(s) and mine was limited at 7000 RPM.
We drove the same roads in the same weather, same traffic, etc. and used the same oil changed at the same time, in the same shop, that your engine and mine would last exactly the same number of miles/years?
No, I don't think you were talking about the same engine. You insinuated that the Aura engine would last longer than the Accord engine, because it turned less rpm over time. I disagreed with that statement. They are both V6 engines, and close to the same displacement, but that's where the similarities end. Not the same engine.
and the Cadillac/Aura XR for 5 years, or 100,000 miles/160,000 kms?
Because people wouldn't buy them otherwise. It's a way to pull in customers who might be hesitant about buying GM products.
NO! YOU ASSUMED, without reading what I wrote (twice), which seems to happen all to much when one is in constant defense mode of his favorite brand.
FACT: If you run one engine at a lower RPM it will last longer than THE SAME engine run at higher RPM. Unless it is a HONDA which will last longer run at higher a RPM, rather than a lower one, if you can believe the Honda owners in this forum.
Funny! Not true, but a good try
It's not funny unfortunately, it's why I believe they did this. Can you show otherwise? Maybe they are an altruistic organization who want to take care of their customers?
There is little doubt that dealers have historically been prepared to pay very good prices for used Accords, either in the wholesale and auction markets or to those wishing to "trade -up" to a newer model. They obviously do so on the basis that the buying public are prepared to pay an even higher price for the car in the used car lot ! Is there any reason to believe that this might change going forward ? Will the buying public be willing to pay so dearly for used product when they can buy NEW product for only slightly more ? It seems to me that the willingness of Honda(and Toyota) dealers to now sell new product at less than Invoice when manufacturer incentives are available is something new to the car market - and that it will work to change the "resale value" for Accord owners going forward.
Ant thoughts on this?
[Interestingly, from what I understand, this issue is related to the wide availability of impressive performance chips that substantially boost horse power. I had one installed on a 2003 Tahoe and was perplexed as to why Chevy didn't do it in the first place. The answer was simple, Chevy was unwilling to accept the additional warranty work that would result from every incremental increase in power. At some magic number, the increased sales generated by marketing a more powerful truck are outweighed by the cost of increased warranty work for a more powerful truck. There is a huge economic incentive for the makers of mass-produced vehicles to dance a fine line and to not push the envelope of reliability (i.e. they can't push the envelope of performance). Cars and trucks likely can be made more efficient, lighter and more powerful. But, not when it jeopardizes the costs of warranty work. Who knows, maybe we all could be driving much more satisfying vehicles (at least in the short-term), if we were willing to accept shorter warranty periods
As has Chrysler recently. Laying a crazy-long warranty on your product is absolutely a marketing tool, especially for brands with past(or current) bad reps and/or brands like Hyundai/Kia that are trying to make conquest sales.
You could argue the other side of the coin with Honda & Toyota, both have built stellar reliability reps and don't need the extra enticement of 100k warranties.
Just my opinion.
So, If all Honda are so reliable that they can easily run well over 100,000 miles with any failures, Why doesn't Honda warrant the power train for at least 100,00 miles.
If GM power trains are so unreliable they would be stupid to offer a warranty that goes far past the expected life of the engine or it's major components.
Can I assume you think GM is a stupid car manufacturer? You fully expect that the Cadillac/Buick/Aura/Malibu's will all fall apart in about 40K to 50 K Miles because GM can't possibly build an engine as reliable as a Japanese or Korean, or German, or Swedish car company?
The fact that there are millions more GM cars on the road with over 100K miles on them than Honda's, Toyota's, or Nissan's means nothing.
I don't believe that GM would put a warranty on a car that it didn't fully expect the car or power train to live past.
Because they don't need to. It's a sales ploy and a manufacturer's attempt to say hey, look here, we're a lot better than you think we are. It has worked well for Hyundai. I will be interesting to see how well it works for GM.
I don't believe that GM would put a warranty on a car that it didn't fully expect the car or power train to live past.
That is exactly the point GM wants to make. It's a good thing!
So why does Honda offer any warranty at all?
They never break and no repairs, due to manufacturing defects, ever need to be done. Heck, I guess they don't even need a service department at the dealership, just an oil change pit.
Get real.
Maybe on this note we should get back to the actual cars themselves, since they are the subject here, not the manufacturers' warranty policies.
That could be over 500,000 Rev's per 1000 miles. or 7.6 million rev's per year
(15k miles per year), That could mean a couple years more life for the Saturn engine.
If you were to look at only the last sentence, you could say you meant one Saturn engine would last a couple of years longer than another Saturn engine, which turned 7.6 million rpm more per year. But you didn't stop there, read on.
That would be true if the engines were made of the same materials and maintenance was the same, and all the driving was done at 70 MPH, etc. etc. etc.
Why would one Saturn engine be made of different materials than another? They are not, so you are obviously talking about two different engines at this point. Also, all driving is not done at 70mph, etc. etc. etc. so what's the point?
Just food for thought
No, just a load of crap.
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 mistake. The Honda turning 7+ million more rev's without any wear would mean the Saturn wouldn't get a couple more years. You see, when I wrote that I was unaware that Honda engines don't wear out any internal parts, and it is irrelevant what RPM the engine is turning at any given speed.
I might be slow at learning this lesson, because I have had to rebuild 4 domestic engines and 2 Japanese engines, but none were Honda's Now I know why.
But the Cadillac 3.6 L V6 engine isn't built with Honda technology so it will wear out, someday. If it wears some part out at 99K miles it will be covered by the warranty. Something Honda owners don't need.
Regarding your earlier post (forgive me if it was someone else) regarding TCO. I have found these reports to be inaccurate based upon the "cash price" and a double hit on taxes in the first year.
Edmund's current TCO bases it's assumption on a 2007 Sonata SE (bought in Nov.) at ~ $2700 higher than we paid in Feb. '07 for the same car (no option package). And, the rebates on an '07 are higher now, with the new model year being out, than they were ten months ago.
We paid $16,651 plus $189 doc fee, plus registration, whatever fees, plus 6% sales tax for an OTD of $18,189. The TCO shows this car OTD at $20,934.
Regards:
OldCEM