Lloyd E Parsons
On 2014-02-21 16:36:32 +0000, Nashton said:

Nashton
On 2014-02-19 4:56 PM, sms wrote:

sms
On 2/19/2014 7:33 AM, David Fritzinger wrote:

David Fritzinger
My personal experience is quite different. I've owned 3 Hondas in the last 16 years, and haven't had any major issues with any of them. My Acura Integra was essentially trouble free for 12 years, while my two Accords have also been essentially trouble free. Had an automatic climate control problem on my 2003 which was eventually fixed under warranty, and the lights on the display panel (for radio station, set temperature, etc) died on the same car a couple of years ago. Otherwise, except for maintenance costs, they have been pretty trouble free. Can't say that about the US cars I've owned (see a previous post in this thread). [snip]

sms
Other than engine and transmission problems, the Hondas in my extended family have been fine.

One Accord is on its third automatic transmission (one paid for by Honda, one paid for by my brother-in-law. Another Accord is only on its second transmission (paid for by Honda). One Accord ended up with a three cylinder engine and that vehicle was disposed of.

I had one CR-V that I hated; it was the first year it came out (I know, big mistake) and there was a major design flaw that was extremely annoying; Honda acknowledged the flaw, explained the cause, and said that they would not correct it (some owners fixed it themselves using components from Ford, but I didn't). Suffice it to say, Hondas are not on my short list when shopping for a a new car. Any of the top five from <http://autos.jdpower.com/content/press-release/bTiXte5/2013-u-s-vehicle-dependability-study.htm>

are brands I'd consider, and Toyota is the only non-expensive brand in that category.

The key thing with Hondas is to not keep them more than seven or eights years because major items start breaking after that. With a Toyota you can go fifteen to twenty years years.

Audi and VW are of course way below average. But ironically, it was my experience that these vehicles had very solid engines and transmissions, as well as very good bodies and paint (Hondas have abysmal paint). It was the niggling other items on VW/Audi products that could drive you up the wall.

Nashton
JD Power? You've got to be joking me.

Toyotas last for how many years? Fifteen to twenty? Hahahahahaha

All cars nowadays, for the exception of higher end, luxury cars, are made from parts by the same suppliers and are not made to last beyond 5 years, I'll give you six, without major repairs.

The only difference as far as the Japanese sub $25000 cars, are concerned, is the fact they they tend to test them more extensively and weed out more problems before the suckers that buy them actually dole out the cash. Don't even talk about NA junk.

Don't kid yourself. In the case of cars, you get what you pay for. The rest is all rationalizations in justifying the fact that one cannot afford a near $100000 for a car.

Lloyd E Parsons
Utter crap from you as usual. 200K miles on almost any engine made today is not brain surgery, just regular maintenance. Diesels make it to 300K under the same circumstances.

That doesn't mean you'd want to keep them for years and years, though there isn't lots of reasons not to if all you want is transportation.

As to who can afford what, I could have bought way higher up the food chain. But I wouldn't get anything that is important to me by doing so.