Honda Car Forum

AGS wrote:
> Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within
> the first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several
> annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although
> numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars.
> Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel
> bearing, and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working
> (probably sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three
> months ago, something underneath in the rear of the car is
> rusted/broken (hearing popping sounds whenever I take a left turn),
> fuel gauge stops working whenever I make a complete stop after driving
> 20+ mins, and my transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first
> start the car after driving it several times during that same
> day...luckly a quick 'restart' of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah,
> my back left window started working again this spring! Don't know
> why...but i'm happy.
>
> Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.
>
> My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of
> savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with
> owning a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.
>
> -AGS
>
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:02 GMT, Bob S. <bsnoma@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
>> decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me
>> upside down.
>> I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
>> Never again, I can tell you that.
>>
>> "Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
>> news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
>> : I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
>> : The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
>> : for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
>> depreciation
>> : and the Accord low depreciation.
>> :
>> : Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
>> from
>> an
>> : economic
>> : point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
>> : eventually account
>> : for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
>> : average mileage?
>> :
>> : I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
>> nicer,
>> : tighter, better made car, and
>> : some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
>> make
>> : an business case for
>> : the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
>> spend the
>> : extra money. : )
>> :
>> : Fred
>> :
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
Tony

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
> Hi,
> Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
> trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
> Tony

Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
making up even half of the $8,000.00.

Fred Smith wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Hi,
>>Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
>>trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
>>Tony
>
>
> Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
> even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
> making up even half of the $8,000.00.

On the Toronto autotrader (Canadian currency prices) a 98-99 Taurus
sells for $13-4k while a 98-99 Accord sells for $19-7.5k, both depending
on model and condition. So even after 6 years the difference in value
between the two cars is still $6-4k.

Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable car.
Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a Taurus will
be spent on repairs.

Cosmin

Fred Smith wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Hi,
>>Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
>>trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
>>Tony
>
>
> Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
> even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
> making up even half of the $8,000.00.
>
>
Hi,
Actually I always keep my cars for 10 years unless it's a proven lemon.
(lucky never had one)
I do most work on routine maintenance. I never buy car on loan either.
In 10 years I can save enough to pay cash. My '98 Honda CR-V so far has
nothing gone wrong. Just regular oil/filter change, all fluid changed
once, new set of tires. Replacing timing belt and water pump, belt
tensioner before winter. Logged ~170K Km and still on original brake
pads/linings.(about 75% worn now)
Now time to replace wife's '92 Mitsu Expo LRV, AWD. Nothing wrong with
it. Rust started and before it looks too ugly, getting another CR-V.
Tony

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:59:49 GMT, Cosmin N. <no@email.com> wrote:

> Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable car.
> Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a Taurus will
> be spent on repairs.
>
> Cosmin

$8,000 in repairs? I don't know about that. You would have to have a
true lemon and no common sense to spend $8,000 in repairs. Besides, if he
does some of the work himself, he can still save some of that initial
savings.

Not recommending Ford over Honda...just saying $8,000 is a nice chunk of
cash. For me, at least.

-AGS

AGS wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:59:49 GMT, Cosmin N. <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable
>> car. Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a
>> Taurus will be spent on repairs.
>>
>> Cosmin
>
>
> $8,000 in repairs? I don't know about that. You would have to have a
> true lemon and no common sense to spend $8,000 in repairs. Besides, if
> he does some of the work himself, he can still save some of that
> initial savings.
>
> Not recommending Ford over Honda...just saying $8,000 is a nice chunk
> of cash. For me, at least.
>
> -AGS
Hi,
Konw how much it costs for a replacement tranny on Taurus?
Tony

AGS wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:59:49 GMT, Cosmin N. <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable
>> car. Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a
>> Taurus will be spent on repairs.
>>
>> Cosmin
>
>
> $8,000 in repairs? I don't know about that. You would have to have a
> true lemon and no common sense to spend $8,000 in repairs. Besides, if
> he does some of the work himself, he can still save some of that
> initial savings.
>
> Not recommending Ford over Honda...just saying $8,000 is a nice chunk
> of cash. For me, at least.


You cut out the part where I was showing that in Toronto, a 6 year old
Accord is still worth between $4-6kCAD ($3-5k US) more than a 6 year old
Taurus. That would mean that the OP would only save about US$4k by
buying a Taurus, not US$8k like it would seem at first.

And $4k in repairs for a Taurus is not as much as it would seem. If the
transmission breaks, it would pretty much cover the price difference.

Cosmin

It depends on what you plan to do with the car. I have owned both.

If you are just going to keep it for a couple of years, then you should just
go by the economics.

If you want to keep it until you wear it out, then buy the Honda. At 100K
miles, the Honda is somewhat better. At 200K miles, the Honda is much
better. The Ford is not likely to last that long without a major rebuild of
both the engine and transmission. At 300K, the Honda, if taken care of, is
still running. I have had two Honda pass 300K and have one at 280+ right
now.

norm




"Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
> and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
> economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
> tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
> an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
> extra money. : )
>
> Fred
>
>
>

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:56:28 GMT, Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:

> AGS wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:59:49 GMT, Cosmin N. <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable
>>> car. Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a
>>> Taurus will be spent on repairs.
>>>
>>> Cosmin
>> $8,000 in repairs? I don't know about that. You would have to have
>> a true lemon and no common sense to spend $8,000 in repairs. Besides,
>> if he does some of the work himself, he can still save some of that
>> initial savings.
>> Not recommending Ford over Honda...just saying $8,000 is a nice chunk
>> of cash. For me, at least.
>> -AGS
> Hi,
> Konw how much it costs for a replacement tranny on Taurus?
> Tony

I've read different prices. Some considerably less than $1000. How good
they were, don't know. But with all the rebuilt transmissions out there,
i'm sure someone could find a good deal.

-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:04:05 GMT, Cosmin N. <no@email.com> wrote:

> You cut out the part where I was showing that in Toronto, a 6 year old
> Accord is still worth between $4-6kCAD ($3-5k US) more than a 6 year old
> Taurus. That would mean that the OP would only save about US$4k by
> buying a Taurus, not US$8k like it would seem at first.

Point taken...but lets give a 2003 Taurus more credit. We don't exactly
know how reliable this year is or is going to be. I may come out that it
has higher resale value than we thought. I would hope so because after
years and years of unreliable Taurus's, you think Ford would pick it up a
notch. But seeing how they discontinued it...hmmm...

> And $4k in repairs for a Taurus is not as much as it would seem. If the
> transmission breaks, it would pretty much cover the price difference.
>
> Cosmin

I just posted on the Transmission price deal...if you look around, you can
find a good deal. I've seen the different prices from Taurus owners via
TCCA's website. "Why buy new when slightly used will do"? Sorry...got
that off a commericial.

-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/