Honda Car Forum

<clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:j5vqj41o7arcqsrm7p3q0s6mvi6im9i45s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:10:20 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:aib%k.9187$Ei5.5106@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com. ..
>>> Cathy F. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I say we buy what is the best, most economical, most intelligent
>>>> buy. The American automakers have screwed up time & again; they've
>>>> become mired in their own mud. Problem is... the mud's
>>>> splattering.
>>>
>>> The recession is going to force even more people to do what you
>>> suggest. How many people will choose a vehicle that will last 5
>>> years versus one that will last 10 years? Compare how many 10-15
>>> year old Civics, Corollas, Accords, and Camrys are still on the road
>>> to any of the big 3's similar sized vehicles.
>>
>>Got any real statistics that will allow me (or anyone) to do this?
>>From what I see on the local central NC roads, old domestic cars far
>>out number old Toyotas and Hondas, but that is just the way I see
>>things. Personal experience leads me to believe, given similar
>>maintenance and driven in similar manners, domestic cars will far
>>outlast Japanese cars. But that is just based on my personal
>>experience and I have no data to back it up.
>
> Well, in NC BIG American cars outsold imports over the last 15 years -
> and BIG cars is one thing the Americans have done (relatively) well.
>
> Try to find an early ford Escort on the road? I'm talking the first
> generation escort from North America.
> How about a Chevy Monza, Vega, or Chevette, or a Buick SkyHawk?
> How about an "Ominous Omni" or "Horendous Horizon"
>
> HUndreds of thousands sold - allmost all now scrapped.
>>
>>Just this morning I was behind a Generation 2 Camry and was amazed by
>>how nice it looked. Most old Camrys look like s*&t. This one had a
>>temporary license tag and an out of state dealer logo on the trunk
>>lid. I suspect it had been repainted (it was two tone, with the lower
>>half silver - never saw one with a paint job like that before). And
>>amazingly, it wasn't even smoking. It was a rare sight. I am more
>>used to old Toyotas like the ones my neighbors own - faded paint, and
>>smoking on start-up.
>
> TwoTone silver and grey was a COMMON pain job on the early Camry up
> here in Canada. Several other 2 tone treatments as well.
>>
>>> The Big 3 are unwilling to take steps to restore confidence in their
>>> products. Look what VW and Hyundai did when their was the perception
>>> of quality issues with their products; they offered extra-long
>>> warranties on the power train.
>>
>>Geez, why would I want to have the cost of crap hidden by bogus
>>extended warranties. Even if they cover the failures, you still have
>>the inconveniences of having the POS hauled into the shop and losing
>>the use of the car for a day, or if it is a VW, weeks. No matter how
>>mediocre I think Toyotas are, I'd pick one over a VW any day, unless
>>the VW dealer delivers two for the price of one and guarantees one
>>will always be available during a 150k warranty period.
>>
>>Ed
> Diito for Mercedes and BMW (or Cadillac))

About all the cars at car shows are the 60's and before BIG cars. I go to
a car meet on Monday nights sometimes during the summer and I see ONE
Corvair. Sometimes if I'm lucky, I'll see 2. No first-gen Chevy II's,
usually. No Vegas, no Citations, no Shitvettes. Now how many Corvairs,
Chevy IIs, Citaions and Vegas and Shitvettes were made?

The only 'small cars' I usually see with any regularity at car shows are
Corvettes, Camaros, Firebirds and Mustangs.

Mike H keeps complaining he sees no Toyotas in car shows. Well, how many
Ford Falcons does he see? Pintos? Mavericks? I had a friend in the late
70's that drove a 4 door Maverick that already was rusted to hell and drove
like a piece of crap. The nickname for Chevette almost everywhere I find
someone willing to talk about them is 'Shitvette'. As far as I'm concerned,
the last good small car Ford built was the second Model A.

I had a friend that had a Pinto station wagon and it was starting to get
expensive, so he traded it for a K-car (both well used, and he'd wished he'd
kept the Pinto.). Where he's at nowadays, he either drives a Toyota 4x4
pickup or Land Cruiser or a motorcycle of some kind.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:25:33 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:70e%k.2449$jZ1.1259@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com.. .
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> Got any real statistics that will allow me (or anyone) to do this?
>>
>> Here it is again. Feel free to make up excuses as to why this data
>> is wrong.
>>
>> "http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf"


The data does not pretend to rate reliability.
It rates one thing, and one thing only - the raw number and percentage
of vehicles registered new in a given year and the number still
registered X number of years later. It does not correct for anything,
including imports of used vehicles (or exports of used vehicles) over
that time period, nor those written off.

And it IS a lot less likely for a Honda or Toyota to be written off
than say a Focus or a Cobalt. The salvage value is so much higher it
takes a lot more damage to write them off.

However, the data is ACCURATE, and has not been interpreted or
massaged at all by Desrosiers except to sort the numbers in a spread
sheet.

His conclusions ARE correct.

ALL vehicles have become longer-lived over the years. This means
people are willing to keep spending what is required to keep them on
the road longer as the years go by. This IMPLIES more reliability, but
that implication cannot be stated as fact. The case of BMW and Porsche
are cases in point.

Cars worth in excess of $100,000 can be total crap as far as
reliability is concerned - they can be desireable for other reasons.
Some go FAAST. Some look GOOOOOD, and others just shout "LOOK AT ME,
I'M RICH!!!.

However, the day of a 6 year old rusted out hulk which is neither
driveable nor worth fixing is, almost entirely, in the past
(Thankfully)

As the numbers indicate, you will see more 1969 Chevelles and Darts on
the road than Corollas and Datsun 510s.
Quite possibly in 2015 you will see more 2000 Corollas than 2000 Donge
Neons or Ford Focus on the road.
>
>I assume the data is not "wrong" but it is likely to be misused or
>misinterpreted, or interpreted to fit the writers biases. The author
>had a point of view, he presented the data in a manner to support his
>point of view. Without a lot more information, it is hard to refute
>his conclusions. I do see a few things I don't like:
>
>1) The data is for Canada
>2) I have no idea of the statistics involved - seeing more of the raw
>data would have helped.
>3) How are they factoring out cars destroyed in accidents? If they
>aren't, then do you think no one in Canada totaled a 2004 model year
>import car during the first two years of it life? Or maybe people
>don't wreck imports in Canada.
>4) In one chart they lump Ford, GM, and Chrysler into one group and
>all imports into another. This makes it impossible to know what
>exactly they are telling me. Are Toyota's better than Fords? Can't
>tell from this grouping. In another chart they list survival rates for
>older vehicles, but again, without the raw numbers and some
>statistical analysis, it is hard to know what it really means.
>According to the data provided 98.7% of all Porsche sold 11 to 15
>years ago have survived (whatever than means), versus "only" 78.2% of
>all Toyota sold in the same time period. Do you think this means
>Porsches are more reliable than Toyotas (I certainly don't). Do you
>really think Lincolns are a lot more reliable than Fords or Mercurys?
>I don't, but this data suggests they are.
>5) No idea on relative usage of the vehicles. Do you assume all
>vehicles are treated identically? Or is it possible that import owners
>are better (or worse) at maintaining vehicles and/or that import
>owners are easier (or harder) on vehicles than domestic vehicle
>owners, or that import owners are more (or less likely) to hold on to
>vehicles for personal reasons that have nothing to do with actual
>(versus perceived) reliability? I think the chart that shows that
>Porsches are the longest surviving vehicles should answer this
>question for you.
>6) How about the cost of keeping something for more than 10 years?
>7) How about number of miles driven?
>
>I've only kept a few vehicles for as long as 11 years. None were
>imports. My Sister kept her last Honda for 11 years. It still moved
>when she sold it, and that is about the best thing I can say for it. I
>am more interested in the dependability of cars I want. I am certain I
>do not want an 11 to 20 year old Toyota of any type. I lived through
>one 80's vintage Toyota. For all I know it is still on the road
>somewhere. All I can say is after 5 years and 50k miles, I was happy
>to see it go.
>
>Ed
>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> No, we should have other nations - like Japan - buying our
> American cars at the same percentages that we are buying
> their cars.

A command economy, eh ? It may sound like a great idea, but it didn't
work out well in Russia or Eastern Europe.

Far better to let the consumer decide.

<clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:6larj4pp1ll7tqenaslkut0hqps54ejran@4ax.com...

> As the numbers indicate, you will see more 1969 Chevelles and Darts on
> the road than Corollas and Datsun 510s.

How many Toyotas & Datsuns were sold in the NA in 1969, compared with Chevys
& Dodges/domestic cars? Until the early 70's (at least in upstate NY) there
weren't a whole lot of foreign dealerships or garages that dealt with the
maintenance of foreign cars. By the mid-70's, that was no longer a
hindrance.

Cathy

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:4mru06-eju1.ln1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "AJL" <nomail@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:b48pj4p6mbbsr5238cn17vppbonbak1uqd@4ax.com...
>> "Marko" <trakp@army.mil> wrote:
>>
>> >Ford and the other US car makers are multinational
>> >corporations.
>>
>> So we would like other nations to buy our American cars,
>> but we should refuse to buy theirs?
>
> No, we should have other nations - like Japan - buying our
> American cars at the same percentages that we are buying
> their cars.
>
> That isn't happening in Japan for many reasons that have nothing
> to do with pricing, or quality, and a lot to do with cultural biases.

That is the biggest problem. How many GM, Ford, or Chrysler vehicles are
exported to Japan every year, compared with how many Jap cars are exported
to here?

On Dec 7, 2:08*pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> DUH! *Ford make vehicles in Brazil that are for dale in Brazil, not for
> export. * Other manufactures do the same, dummy

1) When you call someone "dummy," should look in the mirror first.

2) Ford also makes cars in Mexico for export to the US.

3) Ford also imports cars and car parts from other countries into the
US.

Most of the car companies do the same thing.

Jeff
> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f381434e-8011-473f-b799-155a259eeb75@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 1:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:01:25 -0800, buydomestic wrote:
> > > If all Americans bought American cars, the US economy would be rockin
> > > and rollin right now. Don't give me that stuff about Toyota and Honda
> > > manufacturing over here either. GM employs 130,000 in the United
> > > States. Toyota employs 30,000, Honda less than that. Most of the
> > > import jobs are just blue collar jobs also, where GM has over 50,000
> > > engineers. The Japanese automakers have brainwashed us into thinking
> > > that buying their car is an investment in this country. I say we buy
> > > from the Big Three and take our economy back.
>
> > idiot. "big three" are spending all their resources on ways to have their
> > stuff made in china and mexico. why should we support that?
>
> > japanese manufacturers make their stuff in the good old usa, with usa
> > components and usa workers. buy japanese instead.
>
> Amen! *And don't forget Ford's manufacturing plant in Brazil.

On Dec 7, 2:13*pm, Bentracer and Bentrider <lowbi...@att.net> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:01*pm, buydomes...@usa.com wrote:
>
> > If all Americans bought American cars, the US economy would be rockin
> > and rollin right now. *Don't give me that stuff about Toyota and Honda
> > manufacturing over here either. *GM employs 130,000 in the United
> > States. *Toyota employs 30,000, Honda less than that. *Most of the
> > import jobs are just blue collar jobs also, where GM has over 50,000
> > engineers. *The Japanese automakers have brainwashed us into thinking
> > that buying their car is an investment in this country. *I say we buy
> > from the Big Three and take our economy back.
>
> i would not mind buying american cars again only if they can produce
> quality like Honda and Toyota
> until they can they and their UNIONS can go and $$$$ themselfs.
> they still have not learned from their own mistakes, they just keep
> producing the same old SHIT.

Toyotas and Hondas are often made in the US.

However, many cars made in the US by the Michigan 3, are high quality.
I have a 11.5 y.o. Contour and 0.5 y.o. Focus. Both are good. No
problems with either, other than normal wear and tear.

Jeff

On Dec 7, 5:05*pm, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" <edspyhil...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2:20*pm, "Marko" <tr...@army.mil> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f381434e-8011-473f-b799-155a259eeb75@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 7, 1:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:01:25 -0800, buydomestic wrote:
> > > > If all Americans bought American cars, the US economy would be rockin
> > > > and rollin right now. Don't give me that stuff about Toyota and Honda
> > > > manufacturing over here either. GM employs 130,000 in the United
> > > > States. Toyota employs 30,000, Honda less than that. Most of the
> > > > import jobs are just blue collar jobs also, where GM has over 50,000
> > > > engineers. The Japanese automakers have brainwashed us into thinking
> > > > that buying their car is an investment in this country. I say we buy
> > > > from the Big Three and take our economy back.
>
> > > idiot. "big three" are spending all their resources on ways to have their
> > > stuff made in china and mexico. why should we support that?
>
> > > japanese manufacturers make their stuff in the good old usa, with usa
> > > components and usa workers. buy japanese instead.
>
> > Amen! *And don't forget Ford's manufacturing plant in Brazil.
>
> > This is not about Brazil, its about America. Are from Brazil?
>
> Ford owns a plant in Brazil. *Ford makes cars in South America to be
> sold in S.A. and Europe and the US. *They don't make the cars here to
> be exported. *Ford and the other US car makers are multinational
> corporations.
>
> Having a problem following the discussion?

Toyota actually made some cars in CA for export to Japan. Chrysler
also exports some Jeeps to Japan and Europe, mostly because they don't
have many operations overseas.

Chrysler is barely multinational. They sell very few cars outside the
US.

On Dec 7, 6:49*pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <buydomes...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:880a57a2-9f6e-4fd7-b631-0543baf7e436@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If all Americans bought American cars, the US economy would be rockin
> > and rollin right now. *Don't give me that stuff about Toyota and Honda
> > manufacturing over here either. *GM employs 130,000 in the United
> > States. *Toyota employs 30,000, Honda less than that. *Most of the
> > import jobs are just blue collar jobs also, where GM has over 50,000
> > engineers. *The Japanese automakers have brainwashed us into thinking
> > that buying their car is an investment in this country. *I say we buy
> > from the Big Three and take our economy back.
>
> If the American cars were worth buying I would instead of buying Toyota.
> Probably would buy a Honda without any problem either.
> First new car was a 1968 Dodge Swinger 340. *Ran ok but front seat cracked
> the covering at 20,000 miles. *Total loss it at 23,000 when someone rana
> stop sign in front of me. *Bought a 1972 Dodge Deamon 340 I ordered andit
> came in with a bad spot of paint on the back about 6 inches in diameter. *It
> ran *so much slower than the 68 that I stopped on the side of the road on
> the way home to see if they had put in a six cylinder instead of the V8. *It
> was back to the dealer so many times for not starting and other problems I
> traded it at 18,000 miles. *Got a 74 Pontiact and every 40,000 I had to
> replace a gear on the timing chain.

You got ripped off. The timing chain doesn't have gears.

> *They used a 'paper' gear. *Also heater
> core at 70,000. *Had one other American car and it did no beter. *Went to
> the Datsun in 1981 and only replaced the break pads and lightbulbs and
> battery and normal service scheduled items. *Put 100,000 on it and traded.
> 1991 Camry, 200,000 no problems. *Wife had several Toyatos and no problems.
> Made a mistake and got a late 90 or eairly 2000 something Ford and it had
> many problems. *Back to the Toyotas. *That is not counting on all the
> problems My mom and dad had with the American cars they had. *They had been
> buying new ones from about 1966 and had problems with most all of them.

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:25:33 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:70e%k.2449$jZ1.1259@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>>> Got any real statistics that will allow me (or anyone) to do this?
>>> Here it is again. Feel free to make up excuses as to why this data
>>> is wrong.
>>>
>>> "http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf"
>
>
> The data does not pretend to rate reliability.
> It rates one thing, and one thing only - the raw number and percentage
> of vehicles registered new in a given year and the number still
> registered X number of years later. It does not correct for anything,
> including imports of used vehicles (or exports of used vehicles) over
> that time period, nor those written off.
>
> And it IS a lot less likely for a Honda or Toyota to be written off
> than say a Focus or a Cobalt. The salvage value is so much higher it
> takes a lot more damage to write them off.
>
> However, the data is ACCURATE, and has not been interpreted or
> massaged at all by Desrosiers except to sort the numbers in a spread
> sheet.
>
> His conclusions ARE correct.
>
> ALL vehicles have become longer-lived over the years. This means
> people are willing to keep spending what is required to keep them on
> the road longer as the years go by. This IMPLIES more reliability, but
> that implication cannot be stated as fact. The case of BMW and Porsche
> are cases in point.

Why do you think BMWs and Porsches are not in fact reliable cars? My
P-car is certainly not a status symbol (crap paint, beat dash, so-so
seat covers) just a driver. I find that the cost of maintenance is more
than, say, a Dodge Dart, but it is more pleasant to drive (not knocking
the Dart, if you see a nice pre-67 2-door or ragtop for sale, let me
know) therefore it is worth it to me to keep it maintained. It'll be
old enough to legally buy a beer next year and I hope to keep it at
least until my yet-to-be-ordered new company car hits its mileage limit
and I have the option to buy it out (probably about 3 years.) By that
time I might as well pull it off the road and start restoring it, as by
the time I'm done with that it'll qualify for antique plates

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel