Honda Car Forum

Timothy J. Lee <remove22@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <9Sd%b.413137$na.800850@attbi_s04>,
> Crunchy Cookie <LSC400@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Not that I really care (hence why I didn't ask), but so, do you think the
>>average lifespan of American cars even hits 6 digits?

The odometers of the three American cars that I've owned (70's and 80's
models) rolled over at 99,999 miles. Is this still the case for new
American cars, or are do American manufacturers have more confidence
in their product these days?

Andrew

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:18:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew7636561@aol.com> wrote:

>Timothy J. Lee <remove22@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <9Sd%b.413137$na.800850@attbi_s04>,
>> Crunchy Cookie <LSC400@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Not that I really care (hence why I didn't ask), but so, do you think the
>>>average lifespan of American cars even hits 6 digits?
>
>The odometers of the three American cars that I've owned (70's and 80's
>models) rolled over at 99,999 miles. Is this still the case for new
>American cars, or are do American manufacturers have more confidence
>in their product these days?

It's less a matter of 'confidence in the car' and more 'keep people
from lying and saying it hasn't rolled over and it is 32,000 miles
instead of 132,000 - or 132,000 instead of 232,000. Every American
car I've noticed in the last ten years or so has a million-mile
odometer - and with (lots of) proper care, sensible driving (and a
little luck), it can still be rolled over.

"Clocking" or rolling back the odometer is a felony, as is replacing
the speedometer without disclosing the actual mileage on the vehicle
with a permanent tag on the door-post and an 'actual mileage'
affidavit certificate with the title...

But lying about something that can't be proven or disproven (because
the odometer only goes to 99,999) is easier to get away with.

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Pars wrote:

> The 96 Model Accord was quite common 4 years back. I guess rust most be finally
> claiming them.

Are you sure you meant '96?

While 2-3 years ago, I have seen Accord '94-95 with rusted rear well, I
have not seen so far a '96+ Honda with this problem. It seems to me
that the '96 refresh included a cure for this.

"Philip®" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net.invalid> spake unto the masses in
news:GTQ0c.14735$yZ1.12673@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net:

> In newsd274016p1d0i08nj4es1l4uid7bnh2rqg@4ax.com,
> Brian Bergin <see_footer@bottom.com.no_domain> being of bellicose
> mind posted:
>> Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>>
>> > How about taking a driving course and improving your ability to
>> > avoid a crash?
>>
>> You can be the best trained driver in the world but as long as the
>> other idiots are out there it is often for not. If someone slams
>> into your side door at a decent in a 20 year old car with no side
>> impact door beams you're dead or worse.
>> If you're in an old car
>> without front crumple zones and someone pulls out and you cannot
>> stop (even with the best of brakes, tires, and shocks you're not
>> always going to be able to stop) and your engine ends up in your
>> lap, you're dead.
>>
>> Thanks...
>> Brian Bergin
>
> Nonsense. Watch Destruction Derby sometime. The PREFERRED cars are
> ... full sized sedans from the1970's and earlier ... cars WITHOUT
> crumple zones.


I figure the insurance companies are in cahoots with the automakers.

Ever notice how a lot of cars are scrapped with minimal damage these days?
It's the CRUMPLE ZONE. It's VERY expensive to try to pull one of those back
into shape, therefore the car goes to the crusher, and GM, etc. makes
another new sale (no repaired used-car left behind)!

--
TeGGeR®

Brian Bergin <see_footer@bottom.com.no_domain> spake unto the masses in
newsd274016p1d0i08nj4es1l4uid7bnh2rqg@4ax.com:

> Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>|How about taking a driving course and improving your ability to avoid
>|a crash?
>
> You can be the best trained driver in the world but as long as the
> other idiots are out there it is often for not. If someone slams into
> your side door at a decent in a 20 year old car with no side impact
> door beams you're dead or worse.


Then be careful and take a look before you enter that intersection. That's
what we oldsters used to have to do before Safety Devices.


> If you're in an old car without front
> crumple zones and someone pulls out and you cannot stop (even with the
> best of brakes, tires, and shocks you're not always going to be able
> to stop) and your engine ends up in your lap, you're dead.


What? How old are you?

My own father was involved in a collision in 1957 in his 1956 Dodge. It was
his fault as he was passing someone on a hill (no I'm not proud of that),
and collided head-on at 40 mph with another car. His car had NO SEATBELTS
and had a hard-painted steel dash and all sorts of chromed metal sticky-up
bits to impale yourself on.

I can send you a pic of that car if you wish. He lived. No effect on his
lifestyle, which was very active.

"Crumple zones" are like hybrid cars, somebody's Jamaican ganja idea of a
"good thing".


--
TeGGeR®

My personal experience with used car buying was not a good one. I
thought I was getting a really good deal - a 1994 Mazda MX3 with only
84,000 kms. The first few months were good, but then when winter hit
I discovered that this car does not handle well on the snow. As well,
I got into an accident. So I was in debt the price of the car as well
as the repairs. And even though this car had a high selling value,
based on the insurance companies records it was worth about $4,000
less than I had paid for it! As well, when you purchase cars under
(but close to) 100,000 km you have to keep in mind that a lot of
repairs and maintenance need to be done at this mileage. For me, it
included a new timing belt, header gasket, exhaust system, and pretty
soon new brakes. So even though it may seem like you are getting a
good deal, you are not necessarily. If I could go back and do it
again I think I would purchase a new car, or at least a newer car that
still had a warranty. The costs of used cars often outweigh their
benefits.

It's a matter of buyer beware.

If you know cars and what to look for, and have some abilities at minor
repairs, a 100,000 Km vehicle could be a good buy,(did the current or
previous, owner already do all those required repairs)? I bought two for my
kids (about 120,000 Km), they added about 130,000Km before needing major
maintenance (about $1000.00 and $1200.00, and in one case that included the
engine and transaxle replacement (one kid is an aggressive driver, the other
had two bad ECU's, and a worn clutch).

Other wise stick with a newer car, pay the price and have the warranty.

Consider this, my father-in-law has an American car with 40,000 miles on
it. He bought it new, doesn't drive much, so the warranty expired by time,
not miles driven. He has to date replaced, at his cost; the engine, the
transmission, the exhaust system, and the brakes, as well as having the
entire car repainted, and the dash board rebuilt. He has had no accidents.
At 40,000 miles, would you consider this car a good buy, if he was asking
market value, I wouldn't.

You can get into an accident in any car, in any weather, this could be an
inexperienced driver issue, and not a poor car issue. To much horse power
in poor driving conditions is a bad thing. I have a vehicle with a 6.6
litre (400CID) engine, and starting off in the compact snow was no easy
task, but I've never had an accident in it that I was at fault.

Is $1200.00 invested in a 12 year old car a good investment? I think so,
since they'll probably get another five years use out of the cars without
needing major repairs.


"Steph" <sw6@ualberta.ca> wrote in message
news:2d0f0ac2.0403051835.2161b6a9@posting.google.c om...
> My personal experience with used car buying was not a good one. I
> thought I was getting a really good deal - a 1994 Mazda MX3 with only
> 84,000 kms. The first few months were good, but then when winter hit
> I discovered that this car does not handle well on the snow. As well,
> I got into an accident. So I was in debt the price of the car as well
> as the repairs. And even though this car had a high selling value,
> based on the insurance companies records it was worth about $4,000
> less than I had paid for it! As well, when you purchase cars under
> (but close to) 100,000 km you have to keep in mind that a lot of
> repairs and maintenance need to be done at this mileage. For me, it
> included a new timing belt, header gasket, exhaust system, and pretty
> soon new brakes. So even though it may seem like you are getting a
> good deal, you are not necessarily. If I could go back and do it
> again I think I would purchase a new car, or at least a newer car that
> still had a warranty. The costs of used cars often outweigh their
> benefits.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:29 GMT, "Nirodac" <nirodac@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Consider this, my father-in-law has an American car with 40,000 miles on
>it. He bought it new, doesn't drive much, so the warranty expired by time,
>not miles driven. He has to date replaced, at his cost; the engine, the
>transmission, the exhaust system, and the brakes, as well as having the
>entire car repainted, and the dash board rebuilt. He has had no accidents.
>At 40,000 miles, would you consider this car a good buy, if he was asking
>market value, I wouldn't.

Why does he keep the pile of crap?

I suppose he'll buy the same brand again, in the hopes they've
"finally" gotten their act together (after 100 years of being in the
car business).

It's not all the manufacturers fault.

Paint problems, yes, an issue with the manufacturer, I've seen this across
all lines including Toyota.
Engine failure, Well if you don't put antifreeze in a car, in Canada, you'll
be replacing the engine.
Transmission; If you think you can go from forward to reverse (and reverse
to forward) without stopping the car in the middle, may I suggest you get
friendly with the manager of your local tranie shop, he may give you a
frequent visitor discount.
Exhaust systems that aren't used much in damp climates, tend to wear
(corrode) faster.
And going from 60 to zero in a short distance, will wear the brakes.

The point is, it's how the car was maintained and driven that makes a used
car a good buy, or a good bye.


"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:0lji40ti839ftkgo8054n6t1h19cteg993@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:29 GMT, "Nirodac" <nirodac@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Consider this, my father-in-law has an American car with 40,000 miles on
> >it. He bought it new, doesn't drive much, so the warranty expired by
time,
> >not miles driven. He has to date replaced, at his cost; the engine, the
> >transmission, the exhaust system, and the brakes, as well as having the
> >entire car repainted, and the dash board rebuilt. He has had no
accidents.
> >At 40,000 miles, would you consider this car a good buy, if he was asking
> >market value, I wouldn't.
>
> Why does he keep the pile of crap?
>
> I suppose he'll buy the same brand again, in the hopes they've
> "finally" gotten their act together (after 100 years of being in the
> car business).
>