Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
They're not.
Even if that's true, and it hasn't been proven, there's this:
When a manufacturer continually settles for the bottom of the heap it creates a perception that the owner's/execs/assemblers don't care about reliability, and that is generally a perception based on reality.
Why so much cost cutting that you continually year after year score "worse than average" even if being worse than average is "fair?"
Why bother buying a "fair" product when you can buy excellent products?
And as to the comments that someone should avoid Honda because of VCM or CVT, simple solution, buy a Honda without VCM or CVT, should be easy to do. Not to mention those are 2 options, not standard equipment.
But to be fair, all you have to worry about is your VCM and CVT should you have a Honda with both. With the domestic, you have to worry about every single part breaking down; and there are far more than 2 parts in a vehicle.
No card will give 5% back on everything anymore. The best I've seen in the past is 1.4%, but that's gone. Now I use a card that has a combo of 1%, 2%, 3% depending on what you buy. I also have another card that will give 5% back on restaurants and gas about 6 months out of the year (3 months at a time), and during those months, I use it on those things.
But regardless of the %, I always have the option to use it on anything, including cash money, no restrictions, no expirations.
I do subscribe. I usually skim over the car sections. I don't specifically recall either of those, particularly the Mazda 6 as I do know they show owner satisfaction, but I don't remember (doesn't mean it's not there) any comment like a car is "least liked in its class". I do know that Ford, which had been running pretty high reliablity, has had a lot of problems in the last year or two with My Ford Touch as well as the CVT on the Focus. So that means for domestic choices, you have the unreliable Focus vs. the unreliable Cruze. Of course the smaller Sonic, Spark and Fiesta might do well.
You (rightfully) criticize all of the stereotyping. Yet are you willing to consider buying other makes? How about foreign nameplates made with high US content?
If not, then does that make you just as biased as others, but in a different direction?
If so, then kudos!
A credit card that gives you 50% back on all purchases you make at your local nudie bar is worthless if you never go to the nudie bar in the first place.
So, if you are in the market for being locked into what you can spend your" cash back reward" on, then it's a deal. If you don't like being locked into what you can purchase with your rewards, then it's no deal at all.
I'm not saying its worthless... I usually try to stay at Hampton Inns when I travel, and I get points for staying there. And, I use those points for free stays at Hampton Inns, which is a service I use. So, it can be a smart decision. Then again, I get the points for staying there, not for using any particular payment type.
Personally, I'd rather take a smaller % rebate with no restrictions and have the option to use it however I wish, unless I know for 100% sure I'm going to use the restricted rebate on a product/service that it applies toward.
It's historical data, so I assume it's from the recent years of the current model, not the new one.
Of course it was just replaced. Diesel on the way, too, which will likely boost that rating.
CR bias can be blatant, they don't recommend the Prius C despite it being among the most reliable cars in their survey.
The new Mazda 6 looks like it could be interesting.
Yup. Bad guess. In 89 I went around and sat in and compared Honda and toyota. Chose a Buick Century cooked to order because a camry didn't get the gas mileage with a V6 and automatic that it did and for the cost.
In 92 sat in and looked at stickers of the Honda and toyota and got a 93 leSabre. 31 or 32 mpg and lots of room. In 03 I especially went around and drove a Honda (noisy, ultrastiff, hard seats, steering led different ways at times) and didn't like the camry I drove. Bought an 03 leSabre that was luxurious compared to the camry and not much more out the door than at the local toyota ripoff place (they're letting you have the privilege of buying a toyota, you know, is their attitude).
Yes, I've looked in the toyota and Hnda showrooms about 3 years back. toyota salesman was like a leech and I told him I just wanted to look at the cars. Also have ridden in same. Friend in Michigan has a camry so have ridden in it. It's not a leSabre, but it's transportation. Drove corolla to Columbus and back for a friend. It's actually a nice car if you want tight and small. It compared nicely with our Cobalt. I can't get past the current corolla taillights now that I'm looking around at cars again. Will test drive Accord, camry, corolla, Malibu, Cruze, Verano most likely while I'm looking right now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Also, I don't know if my 2000 Park Ave Ultra is the rule or the exception, but I've found that the only way it's going to hit 30 mpg on the highway is to drive it fairly gently. Not necessarily slowly, but when you get up to those higher speeds, you have to accelerate slowly, be willing to lose a few mph on the upgrades, etc.
I think my Ultra has a 2.84:1 axle, which by itself isn't exactly "tall" by itself, but the overdrive gear is going to knock the effective rate down to around 1.89:1. At least, I'm presuming overdrive is 0.667:1?
In contrast, my old Intrepid had a 3.89:1 axle, and overdrive would knock that down to around 2.59:1
Oddly, I've heard that GM's non-supercharged big FWD cars used a quicker axle, like a 2.93:1 or 3.05:1? Seems kinda strange to me, as normally you get a quicker axle with the performance engine. Wouldn't a taller axle simply offset that added power to a degree?
The Sonic is average, the Cruze is average for 2012, the Fiesta and Focus are much worse than average, and I can't recall what the Spark was. The Verano was much worse than average (I was surprised about this, but then I don't believe it's built at Lordstown like the Cruze and it has a different engine I believe).
The Nissan Juke was much worse than average for the 2011 model and much better than average for the 2012 model! LOL
This all reminds me of being called a liar about the Automobile Magazine that listed several negatives about the 2011 long-tern Sonata they had--until the article posted online, that is.
Does anyone have the November or January issues of CR handy, because it was definitely one of those...I'd lean towards January, actually.
That's a bit disturbing, actually. I look at those reliability ratings to be sort of a snapshot in time, but that they can change from year to year. So this would imply to me that a 1 year old Juke is trouble-free, but then they tend to start crapping out around year two?
BTW, how far back does CR track reliability data? At one time it was only 6 years, but I think in more recent years, they expanded it to 8.
They are a fun drive though, very tight, responsive engine when using the manual mode on the CVT to keep it on boil.
I don't think the saleslady was happy with how I test drove it. :shades:
Feb. they tested mid-size sedans. The Malibu 1LT 2.5L, they gave a higher overall number score to than an Optima, Legacy, and Passat. They did say it stickered higher, and that 'rebates seem inevitable'. I think that's already happened since press time. Don't know about the others.
Concerning the GM card rebate...I think it's a great deal and I'd be using any other card the same amount. I don't feel forced to buy a GM because of it, but when I've had satisfaction for thirty years with them, and get 5% off purchases when other cards give a fraction of that--I feel quite certain at this point that I'll utilize it on my next new car.
The Avalon might be close, but as lemko has indicated and I concur, the design has gone from bland to ugly.
I did read the blurb in CR about what the numbers mean, and your pointing out of apparent inconsistencies between years makes more sense now. The CR dot ratings are RELATIVE to other comparable models in that year. So for example, in addition to any year being different due to a difference in age, there is also what the competition's reliability has done. So I can see a few scenarios:
Let's assume vehicle X had midlevel reliablity Y. And for a certain year, say 2008, the average of other vehicles was also Y. So vehicle X gets an average rating.
And then unchanged vehicle X for the 2009 model is similar in reliablity (adjusted for being a year newer. But a couple of competitors introduce new models that are horrible in reliability. So vehicle X is now better than average because the competition has gotten worse.
Another scenario is that vehicle x is great for the first 3 years, but then has high failure rats of the tranny and interior trim falling off at year 4. So year 3 the vehicle is average, and year 4 the vehicle drops to worse than average due to the common failures at that age.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I happen to like that sort of thing. :shades:
Key events in the fall and rise of General Motors (washingtonpost.com)
It could have been a bit tighter in my opinion, and should of had 215/60/R16.
But it was a great all-around cruiser.
I can't agree more!
Instead of death by a thousand daggers or nails (like when you find yet another cost savings or cost cutting feature in your car), it is great to find somewhere in the vehicle where you got unexpected value where the maker didn't skimp on costs.
For example, the aluminum door sill plates and no black bar seams on the roof of my A3. Two things I didn't necessarily notice or buy the car because of, but that I was appreciative of when I noticed them later.
As for those black bar seams, I hate them as well, but truth be told, I hate 'em even when they're painted body-color. To me they just reek of cost-cutting. I could understand having them on a cheap economy car, or a work truck, but they have no place on a luxury car or even a medium-price car.
My 2000 Park Ave has those strips, but even worse than that, the rear quarter panels seem to be bolt-on. Or at least, there's a seam at the base of the C-pillar, where you can tell the quarter panel is separate. Probably makes it easier and cheaper to replace/repair in an accident, but I think it looks a bit cheesy.
As a used car that I only paid $7500 for, I really don't care. But, if I was looking at this car when it was brand-new, I have a feeling I would've been turned off.
I left, by mistake, the Altima out of that list above, also.
One thing I miss is how, in the real old days, they'd actually go through the effor to finish off the seams of the panel that fits between the rear window and the trunk lid, where it joins the rear quarter panels. That gave the cars a classier, more finished look, IMO. I don't know how far you have to go back to see that, though. My '57 DeSoto is finished off like that, but my '67 Catalina isn't, and neither were my Darts, or my '76 LeMans. In later years, I think that piece just became a panel that you could unbolt and take off on many cars. Nowadays, most if not all trunk lids go right to the rear window, so that panel probably a thing of the past by now.
I never really liked the Fairmont, at least the base model with the single headlights. But the quad headlight models, as well as the Zephyr, I kinda like. But I'll confess that I do have sort of a soft spot for the '81-82 Granada/Cougar, and the XR-7. Never liked that '80-82 T-bird, though.
My grandparents replaced their '81 Granada with an '85 LTD. It seemed like a nice car at the time. When I was learning to drive, I logged a lot of hours on that car, as well as my Mom's '80 Malibu. The LTD seemed a bit more nimble, probably because of the rack and pinion steering and stubbier wheelbase. But the Malibu just seemed like a more solid, substantial car. Definitely roomier inside too, despite it being a coupe and the LTD being a sedan.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/4686124661/
I think they still let you get the 302 in the T-bird/XR-7 in '81-82, but I think most of them were just the 4.2 or worse, the 200 6-cyl, which I think was a credit option.
Chrysler still let you get a 318 in their competing cars, but it was choked down to 130 hp, stuck with a tall 2.26:1 axle, and their cars were considerably heavier, so I doubt they gave you much, if any, performance advantage.
The only rental car I ever had that died alongside the road was probably an '80 Fairmont 4-door, white with pumpkin-colored vinyl interior. I once had a beautiful '80 Grand Prix rental, light blue with blue velour interior, but the only interior light that worked (besides the instrument lights) was the courtesy light on the right front floor (dome light and driver's side courtesy light burned out), and it ticked and I had to put three quarts of oil in it! When I complained about it, I got the royal brush-off by the disinterested chick at the rental car counter.
Wasn't 2011 their v1.0?
It's very common to iron out the smaller issues after the first model year.
I would always expect the first model year to be the worst, and then the last model year to be the best, as all the issues are fully ironed out.
Your Malibu is the best of that generation, because the kinks were worked out.
Then by year two people had gotten used to the look, so it rated better.
I wonder what the '11's rating was after one year?
The car looks like a deformed animal to me.
Blame "le cost cutter" Ghosn if they don't hold up after 1 year.
It's definitely a "love it or hate it " design.
One could make the argument that its sporty and nimble, but the are lots of other models that offer the same, but look much better.
Regards,
OW
Even the freaking Neon might have gotten some non-black dots it's first 3 years.
When I've told people in person that Big 3 vehicles suck face to face, the pro-domestic crowed almost always has countered with I had so and so for "enter 6 digit mileage here" miles, and never had any big issues. The so and so was ALWAYS "enter Big 3 truck here." I'd always countered with it seems the Big 3 don't know how to make a decent CAR, but I suppose they've figured out trucks.
The Big Three have traditionally done full-sized cars very well too, but unfortunately that market has dried up. Oddly, GM was traditionally the king when it came to full sized cars, and Chrysler was always the weakest. Yet, now that GM has retired the old Lucerne/DTS, and Ford did away with the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, the only domestic offering even resembling full size, IMO, is the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300. And even there, I think of them as more of a "big midsize".