Would you be concerned about Toyota's problems? I looked at the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry this past weekend. I like the spacious feel of the Camry, but having owned a Honda Accord before, I am dealing with the loyalty issue. I like the Accord as well, and the reason I am hesitant with the Camry is based on what I have read so far with the problems...i.e. deaths, injuries, ignoring customer complaints etc.
The salesman at Toyota told me that it's all media hype and the government wanting GM to take away sales, bla bla bla. Plus he said that it was an issue with floor mats. That's not what I've been reading :-\
But, here is the kicker. They're offering 5 years interest free. I could pay off that sucker before ever paying interest. Still, will I be driving around scared the damn car will take off at high speed while I'm frantically trying to stop it?
Don't laugh. I am really in a quandry over this. :'(
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 24, 2010, 01:31:24 PM
The salesman at Toyota told me that it's all media hype and the government wanting GM to take away sales, bla bla bla. Plus he said that it was an issue with floor mats. That's not what I've been reading
But, here is the kicker. They're offering 5 years interest free. I could pay off that sucker before ever paying interest. Still, will I be driving around scared the damn car will take off at high speed while I'm frantically trying to stop it?
Don't laugh. I am really in a quandry over this.
I recommend stearing clear of that particular sales person.
Is the 0% for 60 months in place of the rebate and bonus cash? If it is, work out which would be better for you.
As far as the runaway cars? Slim chance of it happening from what I understand but if it makes you scared every time you start the car...that would be something to consider.
whichever one you get make sure it is assembled in the US and not mexico or japan.
Not to try to sound like a sales add. But Im a salesmanager at Joe Marina Honda and I would be happy to help sway you to stay with the Honda brand. If you want a Accord I will sell you one for way under invoice and make the camry not seem like to good a deal anymore. Let me know. :D
Joe Marina Honda? Is that the one up at 81st & Memorial?
We have dealt with Don Carlton. Not to be rude or anything, but the other dealer were a strange, unfriendly bunch. Back in 2008, my husband bought a Sion or however that's spelled from Norton Toyota because of their (Joe Norton) salemen's attitude. Amazing how attitude can lose you a sale. ;D
Send me a PM with your name, and I will see if you can really match Toyota.
They are giving 5 yrs no interest, plus a rebate.
Quote from: inteller on May 24, 2010, 01:43:29 PM
whichever one you get make sure it is assembled in the US and not mexico or japan.
Why not Mexico or Japan?
I'd be stressed out if I heard Chinese assembly!!!
A salesman will say anything to get you to buy his car. Of course, when a salesman starts talking "under invoice", he may have a worthwhile hook! :) (i.e. Go talk to him and see if the deal is real!)
I wouldn't worry about the Toyota, not a bit. Buy whichever suits you better and/or is the better deal. Which flavor of vanilla do you prefer?
Does Honda manufacture anything in Mexico? I'd go for the Japanese made, myself. You don't see UAW workers jumping off bridges because they felt like they'd let the company down...
(not to stir the pot or anything)
Quote from: buckeye on May 24, 2010, 02:22:44 PM
A salesman will say anything to get you to buy his car. Of course, when a salesman starts talking "under invoice", he may have a worthwhile hook! :) (i.e. Go talk to him and see if the deal is real!)
I wouldn't worry about the Toyota, not a bit. Buy whichever suits you better and/or is the better deal. Which flavor of vanilla do you prefer?
Does Honda manufacture anything in Mexico? I'd go for the Japanese made, myself. You don't see UAW workers jumping off bridges because they felt like they'd let the company down...
(not to stir the pot or anything)
The Toyota guy had asked "what numbers would make you buy this car!" I got distracted by something else, and never picked him up on that. What worries me though is all the news about how they, Toyota, were not dealing with the complaints at first. By the way, he called me about 5 minutes ago, and asked if I wanted to "test" drive the car ovenight i.e. 24 hours to get a feel for it. :o I told him I was still in the thinking stage and trying to be an informed consumer.
If I were in the market for a new car. I would be playing this Toyota thing to the hilt. My wife had a 4-runner and if she had not wrecked it, she would still be driving it.
Great product and she never had a problem with it. I would buy a Toyota in a heart beat. She is now in a Dodge Durango and we have already had trouble with it. Minor things but still problems.
Honda is a fine product for sure. And if that is what you are comfortable with and they can match the same as Toyota. I say go for it.
Enjoy working the sales reps. Sometimes it can be fun.
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 24, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
The Toyota guy had asked "what numbers would make you buy this car!" I got distracted by something else, and never picked him up on that. What worries me though is all the news about how they, Toyota, were not dealing with the complaints at first. By the way, he called me about 5 minutes ago, and asked if I wanted to "test" drive the car ovenight i.e. 24 hours to get a feel for it. :o I told him I was still in the thinking stage and trying to be an informed consumer.
These problems happened on an incredibly small percentage of cars, I don't think I'd worry about it, as Toyota has given it intense scruitiny. They've had plenty of time to iron out the issues. It's a crap-shoot anytime you buy a vehicle. Who knows what manufacturer and model is going to get hit with a recal a year or two down the road. You can be sure they don't want more bad publicity.
The media can also make things sound ten times worse than they are because hysteria creates attention. Attention gets ratings. Ratings get advertising.
I believe Toyota is offering free maint for 5yrs on new vehicle purchases as well that cover things like brake jobs, oil changes, lightbulbs, and the like. Might be worth your while to check into it.
Also, this might be considered minor to some, but a huge design flaw IMO. On the Accord, there is a huge knob in the center radio stack, its the tune button, not the volume button, the volume button is to the left of it. Everytime I would drive, it was natural to reach for that knob to turn the volume up, only to change the station EVERY TIME. It drove me NUTS. Once again, might be considered minor to some, but a huge ergonomical error on Hondas part in my book.
Quote from: TUalum0982 on May 24, 2010, 04:43:22 PM
I believe Toyota is offering free maint for 5yrs on new vehicle purchases as well that cover things like brake jobs, oil changes, lightbulbs, and the like. Might be worth your while to check into it.
Also, this might be considered minor to some, but a huge design flaw IMO. On the Accord, there is a huge knob in the center radio stack, its the tune button, not the volume button, the volume button is to the left of it. Everytime I would drive, it was natural to reach for that knob to turn the volume up, only to change the station EVERY TIME. It drove me NUTS. Once again, might be considered minor to some, but a huge ergonomical error on Hondas part in my book.
I am a TU alum as well :) There are some things I wasn't too keen on with the Honda Accord. I thought they 2011 Hondas were out, but was mistaken! It was the 2010 that I test drove the other day, and 2011 Camry. I did find the Camry more roomy in the back and front, but hated that stupid bottom hand brake that one presses with the foot! However, I did like that it was more roomy in the trunk and you can fold the back seats down 40-60 he said. Or something like that. I am not a car person. This is the first time in my life that I am involved with choosing which is why I don't have a car yet! Hubby would read up a little and go out and buy a car.
I hated the way Honda made the dash with all those stupid buttons! pancakes.
I'd buy the Honda. They drive better than Toyotas and are better cars. And there's no safety problems with the Honda. The sudden acceleration problem in Toyotas has not been correctly fixed and they're still deathtraps.
Quote from: bugo on May 25, 2010, 09:03:29 AM
I'd buy the Honda. They drive better than Toyotas and are better cars. And there's no safety problems with the Honda. The sudden acceleration problem in Toyotas has not been correctly fixed and they're still deathtraps.
How many deaths / injuries have been attributed to the acceleration issue?
How many deaths / injuries have been attributed to everything else?
The issue doesn't even register statistically.
It's far more likely the Oklahoma bridge you're driving over or under fails and kills you.
So yes. All cars are "deathtraps"
Quote from: BKDotCom on May 25, 2010, 12:01:08 PM
It's far more likely the Oklahoma bridge you're driving over or under fails and kills you.
I side with that. A bridge I drive under daily recently dropped a 2 foot square area onto the road below. I was thrilled.
Drive them both and see which you like. Then compare price... Go on Ebay and check their New car prices. A lot of dealerships in surrounding states are happy to make $100 or $200 a car + $350 shipping. That can at least give you some ammunition to deal. Of course you won't have to pay the shipping, and it is a local dealership etc.
Quote from: bugo on May 25, 2010, 09:03:29 AM
The sudden acceleration problem in Toyotas has not been correctly fixed and they're still deathtraps.
A more appropriate response would be to learn how to deal with unintended acceleration (even though the chances of needing to know are vanishingly small) and buy the less expensive Toyota.
Hint: apply brakes hard, turn off engine once safely stopped. Better yet, drive a stick and when something wonky happens, just put it in neutral. Don't worry, there's a rev limiter.
Quote from: bugo on May 25, 2010, 09:03:29 AM
I'd buy the Honda. They drive better than Toyotas and are better cars. And there's no safety problems with the Honda. The sudden acceleration problem in Toyotas has not been correctly fixed and they're still deathtraps.
Sudden acceleration isn't the issue, it's the sudden deceleration from hitting an object that's the problem. ;)
Honda dealer has not returned my call, but Toyota dealer called me three times in two days!!! :o :o :o
Going to look at the Sonata this evening. I don't need a car for a few weeks so I have time to learn as much as I can.
Check edmunds.com. You can get some good information on the cars.
I have NEVER paid attention to cars more than to drive them. My husband always picks them and I go see it the final day. This was my fault. This time I decided I needed to know what I was driving, and I have to say that I am learning a lot, and feeling more confident about talking to salesmen.
Any ideas on the Sonata?
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 25, 2010, 04:33:31 PM
I have NEVER paid attention to cars more than to drive them. My husband always picks them and I go see it the final day. This was my fault. This time I decided I needed to know what I was driving, and I have to say that I am learning a lot, and feeling more confident about talking to salesmen.
Any ideas on the Sonata?
http://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/sonata/2010/index.html (http://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/sonata/2010/index.html)
Consumer ratings are good and my nephew likes his.
I don't believe the warranty is 100% transferrable if that matters to you.
First, don't listen to bugo. Obviously a GM used car salesman! And if that comment was serious, totally incompetent to comment on the topic.
Next first, go find the pertinent Consumer's Reports and read!
Second, I strongly recommend anyone buying a new car to RENT the same model of interest for a weekend or a week. It is CHEAP way to get a feel for whatever you get before spending $20,000 or more!! Take a trip at least a few days to see how it handles, how comfortable, what mileage you get (see if you can live with whatever it is).
Third, don't agonize over Honda versus Toyota. They are both great and you will not go wrong with either IF you get the one that feels "right" to you. As far as recalls, Honda has had about 3 since the Toyota thing, so they are not immune. But each of those two has had 1 recall for each 35 or 40 recalls by GM, Ford and Chrysler. (I have a large Mercury Gr Marquis that is under recall right now - and I still recommend them to anyone that wants a big comfortable mush-mobile that gets 25 mpg on the highway! 19 city. (Kissee in Claremore if you want a Ford product.) (And has lived for over 200,000 miles with major wreck that was rebuilt and still runs very well. Excellent car.)
Back to Honda/Toyota. Kids have had total of 4 Camry's, 2 Civics, and one Sienna in last 9 years. ALL superb. (I don't drive them 'cause I am old and want the smooth mush-mobile ride, but have been tempted by Sienna. I did have an OLD Civic and it was great for cost, but very uncomfortable to me.)
The most famous guy with Toy problem where the Highway Patrol had to "stop" him was a guy looking for a paycheck. Didn't happen. The car DID stop on its own, after he quit pressing accelerator and then the brake. The cop car was NOT touched until after they had both stopped.
This topic was beat to death here in other areas, so won't go any further.
Get what YOU like, after some research and testing!!! Enjoy the car! (I recommend Dodge pickup truck with diesel engine.)
You will love either one!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 25, 2010, 09:46:48 PM
Next first, go find the pertinent Consumer's Reports and read!
CR is a good general source but I question some of their automobile handling tests as unrealistic. I remember a test of a early 80s small MoPar car where they turned the steering wheel from lock to lock trying to get the car to roll over. Sure enough, they finally got to to roll but it is unlikely anyone except "your stupid teenager" would do that.
If you want driving impressions, see if any of the car magazines have tested any of the cars you are interested in. I have often seen comparisons among Accord, Camry, etc in Car & Driver, Road & Track etc. You may not be interested in screaming around a test track but more general information is also usually included in the family sedan type of reviews.
Well since Im a manager there I do not get paid commision so thats why I can sell beloew invoice plus Id like to help a fellow Forum member. On the size issue the Accord is actually a bigger car then the camry. The Accord is a full size car and the Camry a Mid size. The resale on the camry also has really taken a beating the past year due to all the bad press. The Camry is a nice car but the accord is just so much more fun to drive. Let me know and I will do what I can to help.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 25, 2010, 09:46:48 PM
First, don't listen to bugo. Obviously a GM used car salesman! And if that comment was serious, totally incompetent to comment on the topic.
What's incorrect about what I posted? Toyotas have a narcotic, numb steering feel with little or no road feedback. Hondas, by comparison, have sharp handling and better control. And Toyotas are indeed dangerous cars. They have a terrible design flaw. This flaw can show up at any time. I couldn't drive one without the thought in the back of my mind that the car might accelerate unexpectedly. The OP should buy the Honda.
Quote from: bugo on May 26, 2010, 01:42:15 AM
What's incorrect about what I posted? Toyotas have a narcotic, numb steering feel with little or no road feedback. Hondas, by comparison, have sharp handling and better control. And Toyotas are indeed dangerous cars. They have a terrible design flaw. This flaw can show up at any time. I couldn't drive one without the thought in the back of my mind that the car might accelerate unexpectedly. The OP should buy the Honda.
Oh, but I thought it was faulty driver side carpeting?
;D
There are things about the Honda Accord that I didn't care for. It really is not as spacious as the Camry or the Sonata in my opinion.
Now yesterday I test drove the Sonata limited. OMG :o :o :o It felt like butter on the highway. The drive was as smooth as the Camry, and not as noisy as the Honda Accord. Very comfy car, but my son is 6' 2" already, and when we take long trips, I wonder about his head hitting the top. The Sonata has a sporty looking design, which isn't what I was looking for, but hey, if the price is right, the reports are right, I could actually get an upgraded car for less than what I would pay for an upgraded Accord or Camry!
May rent a car this weekend as some have mentioned and get to the know the car before I decide. At any rate, price is a big factor as well.
At the price I can do on a new LX Accord $18,714 you cant go wrong. I have seen used ones sell for more. The resale is just so good on the Accord that you will get so much of that back when you are ready for something new. I can also do a LX-P which is a upgrade level for $19,617. :D
What is wrong with the post is a total lack of understanding about cars in general and Toyota's specifically. There is no "terrible design flaw". Or if the trivial little problems they have ARE that, then every GM, Chrysler, and Ford are indeed the death traps mentioned and are criminally negligent for building any cars at all.
Have you ever actually driven a Toyota?? And if so, who messed with the driving mechanism to give you that feel??
My only gripe about Toyota or Honda or any of those other types of SMALL CARS (not full size at all) is the seating and cramped quarters. Grand Marquis is a full size car. Or as close as you can find these days. (Oldsmobile Delta 88 was a true full size car.)
If Honey's 6'2" kid is going to be around a while, you should actually be looking at a Grand Marquis. Same price, same reliability, same gas mileage. Bigger car that anyone will be comfortable in. Not a little tinker-toy car like the Honda/Toyota's. (No, I am not a horse size - not as big as her kid, from the sound of it.) Have an '88 that gets 18mpg. A '97 that gets 22-23 mpg. And a 2007 that gets 26mpg - all highway. All get around 16-19mpg city. SAME with a V-8 as Camry and Accord with V-6. And very nice on highway.
If Honda and Toyota are Tinkertoys, a Grand Marquis is your grandfather's worn-out Lincoln Logs. ;) When it comes to people of large stature, I know a few that can't ride or drive anything smaller than a '72 Electra and a few that are plenty comfortable in the '06+ Miata. It's very individual.
HoneySuckle, you should drive as many cars as you can stand and form your own opinions. Everybody has his favorite carmaker and if you try to listen to all the voices, you'll never buy anything. (Personally, I recommend the Mazda 6 - but it's more sporty and less buttery, you probably wouldn't like it!) They say that the Korean cars are much better than they used to be.
Toyotas are not "deathtraps", that's absurd, wild hyperbole.
Consumer Reports does have a certain slant and it seems they view a carmaker's history with more attention than they do the actual, current car on their test bed. I'd stay away from their new car reviews.
Rentals are often beat like the neighbor's chihuahua when he's not looking - you might not get a very good idea of what that model is really like.
Let me say again - try a bunch of cars and see what you like. :)
Not to knock the Mercury but you are way off. The V-6 Accord is rated at 29 Highway and has 271 HP compared to the 224 Hp small V-8 and only 19 MPG highway. The LX has 177 HP and is rated at 31 MPF highway but most get much better. Also the Accord is a full size car. Here are the compared specs Below. The Merc is a larger car but not by as much as you think and the resale of the merc is rated at only 30% after 3 years. The Honda will have resale after 3 years in the over 50% range so thats adds up to a savings in the long run of thousands.
Model
2010 Honda Accord Sedan LX Automatic Transmission 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
Curb Weight (Automatic, lbs.) 3289 4094
Ground Clearance (in.) Not Listed Not Listed
Headroom (Front, in.) 41.4 39.5
Headroom (Second-Row, in.) 38.5 37.8
Height (in.) 58.1 56.3
Hiproom (Front, in.) 56.6 58.0
Hiproom (Second-Row, in.) 54.3 58.7
Legroom (Front, in.) 42.5 41.6
Legroom (Second-Row, in.) 37.2 38.0
Length (in.) 194.1 212.0
Cargo Volume (cu. ft., mfr.) 14.0 20.6
Passenger Volume (cu. ft., max.) 106.0 107.5
Quote from: SDTULSA on May 26, 2010, 02:45:46 PM
2010 Honda Accord Sedan LX 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
Cargo Volume (cu. ft., mfr.) 14.0 20.6
IOW, if you have a larger dead body...the Merc is your obvious choice...or average sized dead body and clubs.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
IOW, if you have a larger dead body...the Merc is your obvious choice...or average sized dead body and clubs.
that's why none of the cast of "The Sopranos" would be caught dead (no pun intended) driving a Honda or a Toyota.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
IOW, if you have a larger dead body...the Merc is your obvious choice...or average sized dead body and clubs.
Or if, more mundanely, you unexpectedly have to fit four people's (3 women!) luggage in the back of your rental. The Grandma Quis is great for that. The only things I've seen in a rental fleet short of a van that come close to comparing are the Cadillac STS and the Chrysler 300, which both appear to have less trunk space, although still ample by today's standards.
I think I've mentioned that the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis are great for driving in Boston, also. It's one of those places where you can't get anywhere unless you make other people think you're a cop.
And BTW, some of the newer foreign cars really do have nearly as much legroom as one of the land yachts. They are not as wide, though. The best legroom I ever saw in the rear seat of a sedan was an '88 Mercedes 420SEL.
Seriously, though. You can fit a pretty useful amount of luggage or other "stuff" into any modern mid-size or full size car. Given that the only thing I haven't been able to haul in my 20 year old Accord (which is much smaller than those of today) is large furniture and mattresses, I'd say it does pretty respectably. They probably aren't going to fit four sets of golf clubs, though. They will fit up to one large body and folding burial tools, though.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 26, 2010, 01:49:01 PM
What is wrong with the post is a total lack of understanding about cars in general and Toyota's specifically. There is no "terrible design flaw". Or if the trivial little problems they have ARE that, then every GM, Chrysler, and Ford are indeed the death traps mentioned and are criminally negligent for building any cars at all.
I've probably forgotten more about cars than you'll ever know. And there is indeed a design flaw that has caused 89 deaths already. EIGHTY NINE. That's pretty terrible to me.
Quote
Have you ever actually driven a Toyota?? And if so, who messed with the driving mechanism to give you that feel??
Yes and I nearly fell asleep driving it. The steering feel is numb, and the handling wasn't nearly as good as the Honda CR-V that I put several thousand miles on last summer. Nobody "messed with the driving mechanism" (what is a "driving mechanism" anyway?) but rather the car was designed that way. Toyota's engineers have removed most of the steering feel. Not a fun car to drive at all.
Quote
If Honey's 6'2" kid is going to be around a while, you should actually be looking at a Grand Marquis. Same price, same reliability, same gas mileage. Bigger car that anyone will be comfortable in. Not a little tinker-toy car like the Honda/Toyota's. (No, I am not a horse size - not as big as her kid, from the sound of it.) Have an '88 that gets 18mpg. A '97 that gets 22-23 mpg. And a 2007 that gets 26mpg - all highway. All get around 16-19mpg city. SAME with a V-8 as Camry and Accord with V-6. And very nice on highway.
If she's worried about her son having enough room, she should look at the aforementioned CR-V. I'm the same height as her son and weigh around 250 and never got uncomfortable driving it on two 1300 mile long trips. It got 27 MPG at 75-80 MPH. It felt very steady and stable on the highway and handled like a much smaller car. Just the opposite of a Toyota. If you're in the market for a small crossover, you could do much worse than the CR-V.
Quote from: bugo on May 26, 2010, 04:04:27 PM
The steering feel is numb, and the handling wasn't nearly as good as the Honda CR-V that I put several thousand miles on last summer. Nobody "messed with the driving mechanism" (what is a "driving mechanism" anyway?) but rather the car was designed that way. Toyota's engineers have removed most of the steering feel. Not a fun car to drive at all.
If she's worried about her son having enough room, she should look at the aforementioned CR-V. I'm the same height as her son and weigh around 250 and never got uncomfortable driving it on two 1300 mile long trips. It got 27 MPG at 75-80 MPH. It felt very steady and stable on the highway and handled like a much smaller car. Just the opposite of a Toyota. If you're in the market for a small crossover, you could do much worse than the CR-V.
The CR-V is a nice car (I drove my sister's EX a bunch over the winter), but if you want to talk about numb steering feel and mushy shifting, using it as an example of something better probably isn't the best choice. It drives the same as a RAV4. (My grandma had one for a while before she died, and again, I got to drive it quite a bit)
The Accord definitely has a stiffer suspension than the Camry, though, so it's more entertaining through a corner. The Camrys will handle themselves admirably, however.
Yes the last few CR-V's were a bit underpowered but the new 2010 has the new 180 Hp engine and it does help. I woud love to see a nice 200HP 4cyl in the new model in 2012, that would be nice.
Ooooo... hit a nerve! Yep, GM used car salesmen. That "good GM feeling" will make one forget what they knew about cars, all right.
Actually, all other rhetoric aside, sounds like there is going to be larger people at least from time to time, so I would change the recommendation to either the Honda Odyssey or the Toyota Sienna. Lots of room. Just as good on mileage and both excellent vehicles. Both as dependable and both about the same kind of price - sort of. Only difference I can really tell is the Odyssey will accept a full sheet of plywood laying flat, while the Sienna won't quite.
Oh, well, if you gotta move that much plywood, get a pickup truck.
As far as the "comparing sizes" (horsepower, not volumes), anything beyond good acceleration for highway driving is just wasted horsepower and people worrying about "mine-is-bigger" syndrome. And any of the mentioned are more than adequate for highway driving. Kind of like the frame of mind Corvette owners are in all the time...
You gotta go with what YOU like!
So try them all.
A car should have enough torque/horsepower to accelerate to expressway speed on a reasonable length entrance ramp without holding the accelerator pedal to the floor the whole time.
A little engine with a "big" horsepower number can be deceiving with respect to highway maneuvering power. If you are cruising along at 65 mph and about 2000 rpm and need a little acceleration but your "big" horsepower number doesn't happen until 6500 rpm you/your transmission will have to down shift a gear (or maybe two) and then you may not have much rpm left before you have to shift up again. There are exceptions like the BMW 3.0 Liter, 300 HP engine with twin turbos that has 300 lb-ft of torque from about 1500 RPM and up. Most of us won't have (and may not want) that kind of performance. (I would prefer a Roots type supercharger to the turbos.) With modern engines I have settled on about 1 liter of engine displacement for each 1000 lb of car empty weight, 3500 lb car: 3.5 liter engine. My other preference is no more than 15 lbs of car per HP, 3500 lb car: at least 230 HP.
Handling is a personal preference too. Some "drivers" like the numb totally isolated ride of the 50s and 60s US made Land Yachts. Fortunately, the poor control they typically offered is a thing of the past even in the more numb of today's cars. I don't want to feel the tar strips on a concrete road but I appreciate going around a corner without the tires squealing or having the feeling I will either roll over or continue straight through the curb on the outside of the corner. A Corvette or Porsche would be fun but I'm happy with a good sport sedan.
pssst...I think she stopped letting us help her.
Good luck Honeysuckle. Let it be fun. If it isn't fun for you, take a break and start up later. Remember, it's supposed to be fun and exciting. It's a new car...HELL YEAH.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
IOW, if you have a larger dead body...the Merc is your obvious choice...or average sized dead body and clubs.
It keeps you from having to cut it up into smaller pieces...so I hear
Quote from: Townsend on May 27, 2010, 09:02:10 AM
pssst...I think she stopped letting us help her.
Good luck Honeysuckle. Let it be fun. If it isn't fun for you, take a break and start up later. Remember, it's supposed to be fun and exciting. It's a new car...HELL YEAH.
Nope, I haven't. :-\
Tell me something. If I did choose the Hyundai because from what I've read, you get more bang for your bucks, should I be concerned about resale value? I don't generally get rid of cars that easily. My Accord is a 2002 and will be handed down to my daughter probably. The Civic is a 2003. We are not a family that changes cars every year or two. We don't care what's new the following year, as long as what we're driving works!
Another thing I noticed is the way salesmen ask if we're trading in our Honda. I had no idea (before reading) that there was something that great for them. Now I know they tend to make more off trade-ins than they do the new cars! At least that's what I saw somewhere.
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 27, 2010, 11:23:20 AM
Nope, I haven't. :-\
Tell me something. If I did choose the Hyundai because from what I've read, you get more bang for your bucks, should I be concerned about resale value? I don't generally get rid of cars that easily. My Accord is a 2002 and will be handed down to my daughter probably. The Civic is a 2003. We are not a family that changes cars every year or two. We don't care what's new the following year, as long as what we're driving works!
Another thing I noticed is the way salesmen ask if we're trading in our Honda. I had no idea (before reading) that there was something that great for them. Now I know they tend to make more off trade-ins than they do the new cars! At least that's what I saw somewhere.
Resale doesn't seem to be a big thing for you then.
Yes, Hondas are sought after. They tend to be in the top 5 searched for sedans online.
Yes, the money made on the trades is very important to a dealer.
Since you've opened up your search a bit I'd be remiss in not suggesting a couple of American brands, Ford and GM. I have a GM and something I don't know if I could live without anymore is the remote start feature. When it's cold or hot out and you can start your car from inside, how great is that? Just a suggestion.
I am very open to suggestions. The reason I thought to check Toyota (being a Honda fan and all that) was because someone suggested it. Then the same happened with Hyundai. I realise that everyone will have a favourite, but I am willing to read up, check out, and think this through. I have time on my side which is a good thing.
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 27, 2010, 01:34:10 PM
I have time on my side which is a good thing.
Then by all means, take your time. Look at "coming models" on sites and see if you like what'll be out for 2011.
Taking more time and educating yourself means less regrets.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1445/survey-honda-perceived-to-be-tops-in-customer-quality-commitment/
Check out that article. It seems that I would be looking at a Ford over a Hyundai which came out next to last.
Honda vehicles have a few strange quarks I understand, They require the rear axle fluid to be changed as reg. maintence and it requires a Speical Honda oil and they require some other sprical oils and maintence that other vehicles don't normally need.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 27, 2010, 05:50:11 PM
Honda vehicles have a few strange quarks I understand, They require the rear axle fluid to be changed as reg. maintence and it requires a Speical Honda oil and they require some other sprical oils and maintence that other vehicles don't normally need.
Yep, can tell you haven't owned a new vehicle in some time. That's standard practice on a lot of makes now. No quarks here. Move along.
Use caution on new models. Even with the best, they tend to have quirks for the first year or two. Or more.
Hyundai appears to be pretty good - and they do have a good warranty - but the resale value really sucks, according to prices I have seen.
You have Honda's. Are you dissatisfied? If not, why look further?? You may well be able to sell for more on your own rather than trade in. Just be firm when you decide on a realistic price. They will sell.
What is the Civic? How much do you want for it?
I had a totally run down 1991 Civic that I sold last year for $900 with a known blown head gasket/needing an engine. Probably could have gotten more for it if I had wanted to hold out for a while, but sold to a friend - he put in the engine and is driving today. Getting about 32 to 35mpg (if I can believe him). If engine had been good, I would have sold for $2000. Or kept it for a spare car. Insurance costs very little and there are no real expenses unless do a lot of driving. Few dollars per year for spare.
One thing I have a difficult time understanding is someone spending a lot of money on something they don't like. Since you keep your cars for a long time, be reasonably sure you will be comfortable and like it.
Yes resale is important even for those that keep the car a long time. Would you rather drive a car to 100k miles and then sell it for a new one and get $1500 or $5000? Even if a car is less $$$ when you first buy it does not mean its the "best deal".
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 27, 2010, 05:50:11 PM
Honda vehicles have a few strange quarks I understand, They require the rear axle fluid to be changed as reg. maintence and it requires a Speical Honda oil and they require some other sprical oils and maintence that other vehicles don't normally need.
Rear axle fluid? You are aware that all Honda CARS are front wheel drive, yes? I believe the Ridgeline truck is the only RWD vehicle in the line (someone feel free to correct me) You have basically two spindles with greased sealed bearings on the rear hubs. They don't require "fluid" and if they did, rear end "fluid" is called "gear lube".
Check your owner's manual on your old heap, I'd bet changing the gear lube is on your regular maintenance schedule, like every 60,000 or 75,000 miles. Your Ford book also recommends you use ONLY Motorcraft plugs and lubricants.
The S2000 is rear wheel drive.
And there's nothing wrong with enjoying all the "wasted" horsepower at your disposal. :)
Quote from: buckeye on May 28, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
The S2000 is rear wheel drive.
And there's nothing wrong with enjoying all the "wasted" horsepower at your disposal. :)
Why did you have to mention the S2000? My salivary glands just went into overdrive. (I'm like one of Pavlov's dogs that way)
One of my friends had a S2000. He really liked it except for the really thin sheet metal. Thin is light and good for go-fast but it dented way to easily for a street car.
Putting in a new engine is like getting a new car for the most part at least in the mechanical part. I slapped a new engine into a old 1975 Mercury Marquis and drove that heap another 167,000 miles. It had the big 400 CID V-8... I sold it for $200.00. Keeping an old vehicle is far more economical than trading it in for something else.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 29, 2010, 11:37:18 AM
Putting in a new engine is like getting a new car for the most part at least in the mechanical part. I slapped a new engine into a old 1975 Mercury Marquis and drove that heap another 167,000 miles. It had the big 400 CID V-8... I sold it for $200.00. Keeping an old vehicle is far more economical than trading it in for something else.
You honestly believe that driving a gas-guzzler 400 Merc is going to save you in the long run what driving say a Prius that same amount is? In gas costs along?
Wow. For someone who professes to be along in age, you're certainly naive.
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
You honestly believe that driving a gas-guzzler 400 Merc is going to save you in the long run what driving say a Prius that same amount is? In gas costs along?
Wow. For someone who professes to be along in age, you're certainly naive.
It was another time in another era when fuel was under $1.00 a gallon. But the same idea still hold true today, put a new engine into a small pick-up truck and your far ahead in the ballgame than if you bought a new vehicle. That's just my views. if you like new cars and don't mind paying for them go for it, but the most cost-effective thing to do is to keep your current car and fix it.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 29, 2010, 12:06:02 PM
It was another time in another era when fuel was under $1.00 a gallon. But the same idea still hold true today, put a new engine into a small pick-up truck and your far ahead in the ballgame than if you bought a new vehicle. That's just my views. if you like new cars and don't mind paying for them go for it, but the most cost-effective thing to do is to keep your current car and fix it.
Wow...
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
You honestly believe that driving a gas-guzzler 400 Merc is going to save you in the long run what driving say a Prius that same amount is? In gas costs along?
Wow. For someone who professes to be along in age, you're certainly naive.
The principle is sound, though. For a 2000-3000 in work, you can replace an early 90s Honda's engine (and ball joints and a couple of other things that tend to go bad on them after 200k) with a late 90s VTEC engine and get twice the HP with the same gas mileage. As long as the body's good, you will be driving for a couple hundred thousand miles for that money.
Of course, you'd still be driving around a car significantly less safe in a crash than anything built recently, but it would be relatively inexpensive but very sound mechanically.
I'm probably going to end up buying a car in the next year or two. It'll be nice to have been able to skip the death bags in the early to mid-90s vehicles. Early airbags were required to restrain an unbelted person and didn't have multiple levels of inflation speed. And they nearly all used propellants that, under some conditions, can cause blindness. I wouldn't be so opposed to having a post-2000 airbag equipped car.
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
You honestly believe that driving a gas-guzzler 400 Merc is going to save you in the long run what driving say a Prius that same amount is? In gas costs along?
Wow. For someone who professes to be along in age, you're certainly naive.
Depends a lot on how many miles you drive and the price of gas.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
Depends a lot on how many miles you drive and the price of gas.
OK, maybe I should clarify.
Do you think that driving a 400 Merc on today's gas prices would get you the same distance on a finite gas budget that a Prius or even any newer car made since 2000?
You guys seriously crack me up.
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 08:24:07 PM
OK, maybe I should clarify.
Do you think that driving a 400 Merc on today's gas prices would get you the same distance on a finite gas budget that a Prius or even any newer car made since 2000?
You guys seriously crack me up.
Seriously, you are smarter than "gas budget". Think transportation budget. That includes insurance, gas, maintenance, cost of a new car vs. a car that is probably paid for.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2010, 09:21:45 PM
Seriously, you are smarter than "gas budget". Think transportation budget. That includes insurance, gas, maintenance, cost of a new car vs. a car that is probably paid for.
Alright, I concede. Keep your Merc and grumble/gripe about why you're having to spend 150 a month in gas as opposed to that guy (me) who is spending about 75.
My point is, how often will you have to maintain the vehicle? What is your time worth if you do it yourself (I used to)? It got to the point where I was spending more time working on older vehicles then actually driving them. So this last was was my first new one. Guess what? I'm glad to have the payment if I can spend it as long as I don't worry from week to week whether or not I'm going to have to meander down to O'Reilly's to get a carb kit or fuel pump or water pump and then spend the next three hours working on it.
I bet over time, the difference in gas costs alone (probably in one year) is enough to offset the difference in making a payment and the difference between insurances costs. I know for a fact it's worth my time and effort.
But feel free to point it out even further. You and the stinky cabbage can stay rooted in the 60s.
Me? The only sixties car I want is that first GTO I had. That'll be a weekender.
8)
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 09:40:09 PM
Alright, I concede. Keep your Merc and grumble/gripe about why you're having to spend 150 a month in gas as opposed to that guy (me) who is spending about 75.
My point is, how often will you have to maintain the vehicle? What is your time worth if you do it yourself (I used to)? It got to the point where I was spending more time working on older vehicles then actually driving them. So this last was was my first new one. Guess what? I'm glad to have the payment if I can spend it as long as I don't worry from week to week whether or not I'm going to have to meander down to O'Reilly's to get a carb kit or fuel pump or water pump and then spend the next three hours working on it.
I bet over time, the difference in gas costs alone (probably in one year) is enough to offset the difference in making a payment and the difference between insurances costs. I know for a fact it's worth my time and effort.
But feel free to point it out even further. You and the stinky cabbage can stay rooted in the 60s.
Me? The only sixties car I want is that first GTO I had. That'll be a weekender.
8)
I will readily concede that at some point an older car is a pain in the butt. Depending on your capabilities to fix it yourself vs. paying $100/ hr it may be worth buying a new car just to not mess with dealing with the maintenance. I drive 100 mi/week to work and back. One of my co-workers drives less than that including grocery shopping etc. If you need me to, I'll do some arithmetic but figuring around $20,000 or more for a new car every 5 or 6 years is not cheap either.
My first car was a 66 Buick Skylark GS, roughly the same as a GTO. I'd like to have that back too as a weekend car in spite of its 12 mpg city and 15 mpg highway. The fact that the steering column was a lance to the thorax during a headon and the single brake cylinder etc were not any where near as safe as today's cheapest cars is irrelevant.
What I'd really like for a weekend car is a GSX. I think 72 was the last good year, maybe 71.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2010, 11:20:31 PM
I will readily concede that at some point an older car is a pain in the butt. Depending on your capabilities to fix it yourself vs. paying $100/ hr it may be worth buying a new car just to not mess with dealing with the maintenance. I drive 100 mi/week to work and back. One of my co-workers drives less than that including grocery shopping etc. If you need me to, I'll do some arithmetic but figuring around $20,000 or more for a new car every 5 or 6 years is not cheap either.
My first car was a 66 Buick Skylark GS, roughly the same as a GTO. I'd like to have that back too as a weekend car in spite of its 12 mpg city and 15 mpg highway. The fact that the steering column was a lance to the thorax during a headon and the single brake cylinder etc were not any where near as safe as today's cheapest cars is irrelevant.
What I'd really like for a weekend car is a GSX. I think 72 was the last good year, maybe 71.
Don't get me wrong. I loved working on cars when I was younger. As I got older, those cars got older and became more costly to maintain. Then, when all the computers started being the norm, it really became a pain in the rear and made it so you had to have tools and equipment that cost 1/3 of your annual salary just to work on them. Couldn't justify it.
The car I have now has a lifetime powertrain warranty. Plus when I purchased it I had a slew of discounts and got the additional warranty coverage that covers wiring, etc for 6 years. So if I have any problems, I should be ok.
I'm not a high mileage driver (about 8500 miles a year average) so I'm not real hard on cars.
Quote from: Hoss on May 29, 2010, 09:40:09 PM
Alright, I concede. Keep your Merc and grumble/gripe about why you're having to spend 150 a month in gas as opposed to that guy (me) who is spending about 75.
And his Merc will ride like it's floating on clouds. And he would be riding in style, not looking like a dork in a Prius. There are intangible benefits to driving an older car that can't be mimicked by a late model car.
Quote from: bugo on May 30, 2010, 01:52:41 PM
And his Merc will ride like it's floating on clouds. And he would be riding in style, not looking like a dork in a Prius. There are intangible benefits to driving an older car that can't be mimicked by a late model car.
I think you can figure out for yourself who the dork is:
Quote from: nathanm on May 30, 2010, 04:27:36 PM
I think you can figure out for yourself who the dork is:
Yep, the 'not-dead' dork.
:o
I should also ask what those intangible benefits are? Would that be worse handling and braking? Or the awful suspension straight out of the 50s on my SO's Explorer that makes it nearly impossible to drive down dirt roads at speed? I always love driving straight down a road then suddenly finding myself pointing perpendicular to the normal direction of travel after driving over a washboarded area. It is nice to get a little practice at controlling a vehicle in a slide, but I'd rather have a vehicle that doesn't do that in the first place.
I'm sorry, I like the style of a lot of older cars, but they're pieces of junk and deathtraps by modern standards (as are modern vehicles still using the old tech). There's a reason driving fatalities dropped while miles driven increased over the last 40-50 years. In addition to better seat belt compliance, proper crush zones and better designed interiors significantly reduce the severity of injuries sustained in auto crashes.
Quote from: nathanm on May 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM
There's a reason driving fatalities dropped while miles driven increased over the last 40-50 years.
It certainly is not better drivers.
Quote from: bugo on May 30, 2010, 01:52:41 PM
And his Merc will ride like it's floating on clouds.
Not what I want in an automobile. A boat maybe, but not an automobile.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 30, 2010, 06:04:33 PM
Not what I want in an automobile. A boat maybe, but not an automobile.
That sort of thing is nice if you're using the car specifically only for long distance highway travel. Better for that are cars like recent Cadillacs that handle reasonably well through curves yet still insulate you from the road when you're cruising down the highway at 75. Feeling every expansion joint in the road gets old once you're into your 8th hour of driving for the day.
Quote from: nathanm on May 30, 2010, 06:42:36 PM
That sort of thing is nice if you're using the car specifically only for long distance highway travel. Better for that are cars like recent Cadillacs that handle reasonably well through curves yet still insulate you from the road when you're cruising down the highway at 75. Feeling every expansion joint in the road gets old once you're into your 8th hour of driving for the day.
I agree that I don't want to feel the expansion joints and have frequently said so. I also don't want to hear a loud exhaust system for hours on end. Floaty is not what I want even for a long distance drive. I have a 1995 (E34) BMW 540i. Early in its career, I returned from a trip to Ohio, interrupted by a stop in St. Louis. When I got home, I almost immediately went on a short excursion to Nowata. No problem. Float and isolation are not the answer. Stiff as a buckboard is also not the answer.
Edit:
I might as well add:
My first car was a 66 Buick Skylark GS (400). I have to admit to not driving it more than 20 hours (with my brother) from Philly to here. It was not a floater but it was a good highway car. I also did several solo 2 day drives from the east coast (Philly or Va Beach, Va) to Bixby after the 55 mph speed limit. That's a bunch of hours. The next car I drove long distance was a 81 Buick Skylark Sport Coupe, also not a floater. My brother and I drove it from Albuquerque (towing a trailer) to Minden NV, non stop. We got about 6 hours rest and returned to Albuquerque. I wouldn't want to do that in a floater.
Quote from: HoneySuckle on May 24, 2010, 02:13:20 PM
Why not Mexico or Japan?
because it keeps your fellow countrymen employed.
Hoss,
Most people would save a ton of money if they bought a car and drove it 'till the wheels fell off. After the payment period, costs on any car one can buy today (or just about anything in the last 30 years, except for Corvette and Camaro) would be under $100 per month, IF - and it is a HUGE IF - people would do the normal routine maintenance required by modern automobiles. I have kept very close track of my personal experience, and the $100 is very ample for my needs. I like 100 instead of 500 monthly payment a LOT, so I keep cars for a long time. (And most of them I haven't bought until they have over 50,000 miles on them, so the initial cost is very reasonable and depreciation just doesn't even impinge on my stream of consciousness.)
I drive some gnarly looking vehicles at times, sometimes not, but the guts (drivetrain, brakes, important stuff) are kept very well maintained. And it is cheap.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 31, 2010, 10:43:14 PM
Hoss,
Most people would save a ton of money if they bought a car and drove it 'till the wheels fell off. After the payment period, costs on any car one can buy today (or just about anything in the last 30 years, except for Corvette and Camaro) would be under $100 per month, IF - and it is a HUGE IF - people would do the normal routine maintenance required by modern automobiles. I have kept very close track of my personal experience, and the $100 is very ample for my needs. I like 100 instead of 500 monthly payment a LOT, so I keep cars for a long time. (And most of them I haven't bought until they have over 50,000 miles on them, so the initial cost is very reasonable and depreciation just doesn't even impinge on my stream of consciousness.)
I drive some gnarly looking vehicles at times, sometimes not, but the guts (drivetrain, brakes, important stuff) are kept very well maintained. And it is cheap.
Exactly- that's the most economical way to go. I could not of said it better myself. A co-worker of mine a few years ago bought a old 1985 Dodge Truck with a bad engine, he paid $500.00 for it & slapped in a fresh 318 V-8 that costed him $2,200 installed and the truck ran like a champ, he also bought a new seat for it, so he just about got a new vehicle for $2,800.00... New car or old car they all still need regular maintence like brakes and oil changes, spark plus, and what have ya.
Quote from: nathanm on May 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM
I should also ask what those intangible benefits are? Would that be worse handling and braking? Or the awful suspension straight out of the 50s on my SO's Explorer that makes it nearly impossible to drive down dirt roads at speed? I always love driving straight down a road then suddenly finding myself pointing perpendicular to the normal direction of travel after driving over a washboarded area. It is nice to get a little practice at controlling a vehicle in a slide, but I'd rather have a vehicle that doesn't do that in the first place.
I'm sorry, I like the style of a lot of older cars, but they're pieces of junk and deathtraps by modern standards (as are modern vehicles still using the old tech). There's a reason driving fatalities dropped while miles driven increased over the last 40-50 years. In addition to better seat belt compliance, proper crush zones and better designed interiors significantly reduce the severity of injuries sustained in auto crashes.
Actually todays cars are getting more & more dangerous as they keep making them smaller & smaller. The new Obama Cafe standards are expected to cost many more lives on the highways. The laws of physics can't be changed. Google has alot of info on that. As the government requires better & better fuel economy the cost in lives goes up.
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 01, 2010, 10:20:24 AM
Actually todays cars are getting more & more dangerous as they keep making them smaller & smaller. The new Obama Cafe standards are expected to cost many more lives on the highways. The laws of physics can't be changed. Google has alot of info on that. As the government requires better & better fuel economy the cost in lives goes up.
You're wrong.
Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.
You need to use your library card for something else.
And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2010, 10:51:36 AM
You're wrong.
Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.
You need to use your library card for something else.
And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.
Why, he writes this stuff himself. Let's remember, he does endorse Palin for Pres in 2012. That, in and of itself, should speak volumes.
"How many magazines do you read?"
"That's a gotcha question!"
There should be a minimum common sense level to operate on teh Interwebzh....
Quote from: Hoss on June 01, 2010, 11:51:43 AM
There should be a minimum common sense level to operate on teh Interwebzh....
There is, it's just pretty low.
Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate. Traditionally it has run in the 40's. I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.
Too bad we have been stagnant (actually regressive) for so many years on CAFE. If Honda could make a 1976 Impala get 26mpg, there is NO excuse that they can't do a lot better than that today. Yeah, fissicks gets in the way, but no we aren't even close to those limits yet.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 01, 2010, 12:44:52 PM
Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate. Traditionally it has run in the 40's. I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.
Not true. The last statistics available, 2008 shows almost a 10% reduction in DUI deaths from the prior year. Since the inception of MADD in 1980, drunk driving deaths have dropped from around 30,000 per year in the U.S. to under 12,000 as of 2008. Tougher laws apparently have worked as a deterrent as there are more drivers on the road now than 30 years ago.
Well, it's way past due! The idea of 12,000 a year is still an abomination. Anyone convicted of drunk/impaired driving should receive mandatory felony prison time. Second event, life without parole. If someone is killed by drunk, then death penalty.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 01, 2010, 12:44:52 PM
Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate. Traditionally it has run in the 40's. I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.
Too bad we have been stagnant (actually regressive) for so many years on CAFE. If Honda could make a 1976 Impala get 26mpg, there is NO excuse that they can't do a lot better than that today. Yeah, fissicks gets in the way, but no we aren't even close to those limits yet.
The problem I believe is all the smog/emission controls that the government requires they kill fuel economy on cars. BTW I was watching an old "Price Is Right" show from 1960 with Bill Cullin and they had on a 1960 car called "Big Midget" or some such thing, and it got 65 miles per gallon they said in discribing the car and to top it off the the prize came with 1,000 gallons of gasoline. (The cars price was $950.00 dollars) I seen "Time" & "Newsweek" mags from the 1970's that had ads for the Pinto, Honda, Toyota, and Chevy Vega and small cars of that era that were pulling in around 35-40 miles per gallon and those cars had carbs. on them. Then there was the old myth that some guy invented a carb that got 100 miles per gallon and he got death threats from the oil companies or something. ::)
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2010, 10:51:36 AM
You're wrong.
Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.
You need to use your library card for something else.
And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.
Not at all- it was in the news a while ago as the CAFE standards go up so does the death rate- Google also has many articles about that- as cars get smaller more people die. Besides as in that video if they can make a small car that safe just think if they made a big car like that, it would be like a tank. BTW, I wonder if that 1959 Chevy in the film clip was a real car or a mock up, the car looked brand new and those are rare, hard to find cars, who would go out and find a new looking restored 1959 Chevy and crash it? If it was a mock-up the test would be flawed. If anything the thing to do would be to get a old beat up 1959 Chevy, A car does not have to be shinny new looking to give a accurate crash test result. Just wondering about that...- Plus, With computers now-a-daze you can't believe everything you see.
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 01, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
There is no way the traffic death rate is as low as 12,000 it's between 35,000 or 40,000 in that neighborhood, don't forget as fuel prices go up people drive less and that affects the death rate but 12,000 is way out of the ball park. BTW Smoking kills 400,000 a year and cigs are still a legal item.
12,000 is the MVA death toll attributed to drunk driving...not the overall rate.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 01:53:48 PM
12,000 is the MVA death toll attributed to drunk driving...not the overall rate.
OK- I stand corrected then, I thought they were talking about the entire death rate. yep that sounds about right. :-X
I have restrained myself so far, but just can't get there from here anymore.
Cabbage-head;
Geez...get some reality pills or something...
Do you actually believe all that c***?? The smog/emission controls have NOT killed fuel economy. Plus they have enhanced dramatically the overall performance of the automobile. Others have commented about your age and how you have been around a while, so unless there is a major case of dementia, you have to remember the 10,000 mile intervals for tune-ups, and all the associated nonsense that went with those old cars.
And no, there was no 1960's car that got 65 mpg.
Again,...geez....
The 1960 car that got 65 miles per gallon was called the big Midget and it costed around $950.00 with a top speed of 70mph. There are pro's and cons of the old cars, one thing they did not have was a troublesome "check engine" light and things like that.. Todays cars have 02 sensors, MAP sensors, crankshaft sensor and all the rest of the expensive sensors and expensive dignostic equipment to dig up codes, The fuel pumps today cost $200.00 and are a bear to install, on old cars they costed $15.00 and took 10 minutes to install. Tune ups are no big deal on old cars with easy to reach plugs & plug wires, in the 1970's the cars all had electronic spark that did away with the troublesome points.. The one thing that I would like to see is cars running on natural gas- I dunno why they won't go that way, instead they got those flex fuel vehicles to run on ethonol and gasoline. Natural gas has alot of good postive things, it's cheap about $1.00 a gallon, it burns clean so plugs last longer, you would be able to get attachments to refuel in your home if you got natural gas in your house. They would need to set up natural gas stations so drivers can re-fuel away from home. We have huge supplies of natural gas so we won't have to keep importing our motor fuel. I strongly would support running cars on natural gas.
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 01, 2010, 06:48:30 PM
The 1960 car that got 65 miles per gallon was called the big Midget and it costed around $950.00 with a top speed of 70mph. There are pro's and cons of the old cars, one thing they did not have was a troublesome "check engine" light and things like that.. Todays cars have 02 sensors, MAP sensors, crankshaft sensor and all the rest of the expensive sensors and expensive dignostic equipment to dig up codes, The fuel pumps today cost $200.00 and are a bear to install, on old cars they costed $15.00 and took 10 minutes to install. Tune ups are no big deal on old cars with easy to reach plugs & plug wires, in the 1970's the cars all had electronic spark that did away with the troublesome points.. The one thing that I would like to see is cars running on natural gas- I dunno why they won't go that way, instead they got those flex fuel vehicles to run on ethonol and gasoline. Natural gas has alot of good postive things, it's cheap about $1.00 a gallon, it burns clean so plugs last longer, you would be able to get attachments to refuel in your home if you got natural gas in your house. They would need to set up natural gas stations so drivers can re-fuel away from home. We have huge supplies of natural gas so we won't have to keep importing our motor fuel. I strongly would support running cars on natural gas.
One of our biggest suppliers of natural gas posts on this forum as cooked cabb....oh, nevermind.
So the big car sales weekend came and went while I was in Austin.
I got two emails from Toyota, and one from the Honda dealer all telling me that these incentives are ending on June 1st. Couldn't do anything about that seeing that I was away and having fun! ;D
Do you all think there will be less incentives during summer for car buyers? I was reading on this site about car deals:
http://www.realcartips.com/car-incentives/best-car-deals.shtml
Quote from: HoneySuckle on June 02, 2010, 10:02:20 AM
So the big car sales weekend came and went while I was in Austin.
I got two emails from Toyota, and one from the Honda dealer all telling me that these incentives are ending on June 1st. Couldn't do anything about that seeing that I was away and having fun! ;D
Do you all think there will be less incentives during summer for car buyers? I was reading on this site about car deals:
http://www.realcartips.com/car-incentives/best-car-deals.shtml
2011 model years are starting to show.
Incentives tend to increase as the year progresses. Only thing is you have to time it right so that you can still find what you want before it's gone.
They sent those emails because nothing closes a deal like "fear of loss".
When it comes to buying a new vehicle, sometimes the best deals can be had in late summer to early fall when the new models come out, the dealers want to clear their lots of the old 2010 models to make room for the new 2011 vehicles. They are wheelin' & dealin' then... :-X
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 02, 2010, 02:32:50 PM
When it comes to buying a new vehicle, sometimes the best deals can be had in late summer to early fall when the new models come out, the dealers want to clear their lots of the old 2010 models to make room for the new 2011 vehicles. They are wheelin' & dealin' then... :-X
New models come out in June now.
The Toyota 2011 cars have been out since April from what I gathered.
Hondas are still dealing 2010's.
Will go back and take a look at both Honda and Toyota maybe on Friday and see what my second time around tells me.
I think the dealers hate that I am not a compulsive/impulsive buyer ;D
The incentives will be back, don't worry about that. Bide your time.
The dealers may hate it, but not nearly as much as they hate not making a sale at all! Besides, you can't care what they think. They may be friendly, but they're certainly not your friends. Their only desires have to do with your money! And that's ok, too as long as everybody's on the same page.
If you can stand it, leave color off your list of requirements. You might -pretend- that you have to have a certain color if it gets you leverage with the salesman, however...
Quote from: buckeye on June 02, 2010, 04:57:30 PM
The incentives will be back, don't worry about that. Bide your time.
The dealers may hate it, but not nearly as much as they hate not making a sale at all! Besides, you can't care what they think. They may be friendly, but they're certainly not your friends. Their only desires have to do with your money! And that's ok, too as long as everybody's on the same page.
If you can stand it, leave color off your list of requirements. You might -pretend- that you have to have a certain color if it gets you leverage with the salesman, however...
Good point about the colour!
A friend of mine got her car about a month ago, and the first thing she said was "my salesman was so FRIENDLY, go to him!" Hell, aren't they all? ??? They are trying to sell you a car.
Thanks. I am taking my time even thoughthese salesmen are trying to make me think I will lose the incentives if I wait too long...like another couple of weeks. ::)
The Midget isn't a car. It is a riding lawn mower without blades....barely.
Definitely use color. If they have one, say your heart was set on another. Then pressure. (Probably won't work, but it will make you feel better for having tried.)
http://www.kingmidgetcarclub.org/ (for information's sake)
Yeah. Not a car.
Quote from: HoneySuckle on June 02, 2010, 10:41:33 PM
Thanks. I am taking my time even thoughthese salesmen are trying to make me think I will lose the incentives if I wait too long...like another couple of weeks. ::)
The current incentives may well expire (check edmunds, they have a list of factory to dealer and factory to consumer incentives and their effective dates), but if you're in no hurry, you can wait around for the next time the car company feels the need to push hard for sales.
A lot of people swear by the method of figuring out exactly what you want, emailing a bunch of dealers offering invoice plus the destination charge minus all the incentives and holdback plus $500 and having whoever is willing to do the deal special order the car. They get to make $500 (plus the other manufacturer money we don't know about) for a half hour's work. The key with this method is to have your financing lined up, whether by asking a friendly finance manager (hello creditboards.com!) to see if you really qualify for the manufacturer's teaser rates or by shopping around at a few banks and/or credit unions.
Dealers have every incentive to screw you on the financing, so its best to at least have another offer in hand.
Quote from: nathanm on June 03, 2010, 04:59:36 PM
The current incentives may well expire (check edmunds, they have a list of factory to dealer and factory to consumer incentives and their effective dates), but if you're in no hurry, you can wait around for the next time the car company feels the need to push hard for sales.
A lot of people swear by the method of figuring out exactly what you want, emailing a bunch of dealers offering invoice plus the destination charge minus all the incentives and holdback plus $500 and having whoever is willing to do the deal special order the car. They get to make $500 (plus the other manufacturer money we don't know about) for a half hour's work. The key with this method is to have your financing lined up, whether by asking a friendly finance manager (hello creditboards.com!) to see if you really qualify for the manufacturer's teaser rates or by shopping around at a few banks and/or credit unions.
Dealers have every incentive to screw you on the financing, so its best to at least have another offer in hand.
Do you think the incentives and 0% interest for 5 years that is being offered by Toyota's dealer is bad? I was just wondering. I think Honda was 2.(% but I may be wrong.
You will generally not get as good a "price" on a car financed at 0% as you could on a car financed with interest. They have to get their money somewhere in the transaction. Try to look at the total package and not just one or two really attractive details. What may be attractive to you in terms of price or cash flow may not be attractive to someone else so they put a lot of choices out there.
Back in the 1970's they had books that told ya how to get the best deal and find out what the dealer really paid for his models, and how to turn the tables on the dealer- it's all like a game according to the authors.. The idea mentioned above about pretending to want a certain color is worth a try. As for colors if you can get a standard plain color like white, black or pure red those colors are the easyest to match when the car gets older-in fact I had a white car long ago and to touch up nicks and scratchs a can of white 88 cent spray paint from Big Lots matched perfectly. About that midget car the one I seen on that 1960 game show looked a bit bigger, but it's close to what those posted links showed. The top speed is 60-70 mph, they do look like they would be fun to drive.
After many delays (I took two trips), I am finally going to the Toyota dealer to take another look at a Camry. I had time to think some more.
Un-@#$%&%-believable! The car dealership offered me $3,500 for my Honda 2002 car ::) pancakes. I don't need a car that badly!
Might try selling it yourself. You generally never get decent money for trade in. I understand the dealership needs to make a profit on the vehicle which is fine, but they shouldnt low ball you like that. Try putting an ad up on craigslist and if you get any prospective buyers, meet at a safe location, like a QT or something. That way there are plenty of people around if anything happens. I have done this MULTIPLE times selling extra tickets and a Wii system, and have never had any problems.
Also might try autotrader, I believe its 40-60 bucks with a picture and the ad runs until it sells...although they could have changed that in the past 2-3yrs.
What do you think the old one is worth? N.A.D.A., etc.
Keep it for a spare. Put it on liability only, change the oil once in a while and just drive it occasionally. Couldn't get a better backup ever. (Unless there is something wrong with it - in which case, you better take the trade and run.)
Quote from: HoneySuckle on July 22, 2010, 08:53:42 PM
Un-@#$%&%-believable! The car dealership offered me $3,500 for my Honda 2002 car ::) pancakes. I don't need a car that badly!
Eight year old cars that run are usually worth more to their owners than anybody else.
Quote from: nathanm on July 23, 2010, 12:33:04 AM
Eight year old cars that run are usually worth more to their owners than anybody else.
I agree. I did look up some 2002 Honda values though. Without knowing the car, I think she still got lowballed a bit, even on trade in value.
As little as it would cost to keep for a spare, I would never think of getting rid of a Honda that new. Only talking 30 or 40 per month for that kind of automobile? Write off the 3,000 in your mind, hang onto it, and never regret getting rid of a good car.
You could literally keep that the rest of your life at this point and no matter what kind of mechanical maintenance you have to do in the future - forever! - you will never have another car that costs you less than that one. You will never average $100 a month for the next 30 years with it - including engines, transmissions, suspensions, tires, batteries - everything. And if you do at least some of the work yourself, you save even more.
We do need another car because of the four drivers, three cars we've been trying to pull, but it is not working too well.
But hubby figured since Toyota has incentives, maybe he could trade mine in and get a RAV4. When he heard that they want to give us $3,500, he said no way. The dealer even said "nice car!" I know they have to make money too, but good heavens, I can't pick up a Honda Accord with sun roof and all the other nice things for that money unless it's been really battered. We're keeping it, and I will look to change the insurance on it meanwhile. I seriously don't do much driving myself except in Tulsa. I never drive out of town personally because my husband drives or my daughter. My vision isn't the best and for my safety and others, I make that choice to stay where I can handle. It's a genetic thing with my vision. Started when I was in my teens.
Don't talk about your vision. Especially around your insurance people. (Note the selective morality moment here - me talking about vision is a little bit like Gaspar letting his acquaintance get away with unemployment fraud. Ironic, huh?)