Sorry Andrew…but this is NOT a snowy area (only in the Mountains). Try Oswego NY for snow and road salt…They already have 40" of snow this season.
common sense answer:
If they really “melt” that rapidly in your neck of the woods, then surely these Toyotas qualify for coverage under the manufacturer’s “rust-through” warranty! If I am not mistaken, that coverage runs for 6 years.
If the owners of these vehicles don’t avail themselves of this coverage, then I have to assume that they are among the rubes who never open the glove compartment and thus, never read the terms of their multiple warranties, and also never read the Owner’s Manual or the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule!
All cars sold in the US and Canada have to meet the same “rust through” requirement, and this is accompanied by a warranty. Some, like Volkswagen, even go much further and offer 10 years vs 5 years for the standard. For that reason, I would not hesitate now to buy a Kia.
Salt/sand usage is not directly proportional to the amount of snow you receive. The point goal of road salt/sand is to melt ice that is a byproduct of wet winter weather near or below the freezing point.
I am thankful snow quantities are limited especially by the warming factor of the coast. I guess we get bitten occasion though with ocean effect storms though.
Duly noted. I don’t think I’ve used the term at all around the salesman; when he couldn’t even come up with the car’s expected gas mileage, I stopped asking him about the model’s features in favor of post-sales-talk Internet research.
(Also, I’m completely willing to accept that I am a complete rube, but I’m not anxious to be fleeced, so the advice is welcome.)
Oh sure…but in this case it is…Oswego NY uses 3-4 times the amount of Salt Manchester does. In fact their salt usage is larger then Milwaukee…consider that Oswego is a college town that’s a LOT of snow. Back when the drinking age as 18…they also consumed more Beer then Milwaukee.
The more salt that is used the more a car rusts out. There was a study done by Syracuse University almost 30 years commissioned by Fisher Body to study why cars rust. They chose SU because of the location to the “Rust Belt”. Cars rust out there at much higher rates then other parts of the country because of the amount of snow and the amount of salt they put on the roads. Salt use in that are is a MUST.
I’m Talking About Not Even Being Able To Replace Brake Pads Because Of Rust-Welded Caliper Bolts, Etcetera, Not Just Body Panels!
I’ve replaced a lot of pads and rotors and only have this problem on Toyotas.
This Space For Rent
I would not trust any belt over 75K on any vehicle. If you push it to the limit, you might just step over it and face a very expensive repair bill. A $400-500 maintenance bill is about 1/10th what other alternative is.
The only thing better, is an engine with a timing chain - nothing to do there but guides.
I would say test drive both and buy the one you like most, esp the looks and if married take spouse/wife along. My wife’s first question would be what color?
On another note if one has better maintenance records I will give that one more +ve.
David, I Hate To Rain On Your Parade, But …
David, you ask, " Any major maintenance issues or bad reputation with either one that I’m missing?"
There is one other issue that I never overlook. Are you looking for better reliability in order to help drive something economical? When I shop for a car, one of the factors I consider is insurance cost. When I looked up my recently purchased new car, prior to purchase, it scored better than average for insurance “losses” in one catergory and “substantially better than average” in all others. Sure enough, when I called my agent my “new” car was very inexpensive to insure (and safe). Picking up a couple of MPG and paying less for insurance every six months made my decision easier.
Neither this Sebring nor Kia Optima win any prizes for insurance loss payouts, according to my online information. The Kia is possibly a little worse, but both score “sustantially worse than average” (the lowest catergory) in areas of loss such as; personal injury protection, medical payment, and bodily injury. Why would that be? For some reason these cars cost the insurance companies heavily. Also, both cars scored only “average” (middle catergory) in three other loss areas.
This may not mean much. Maybe the car you’re in now has high premiums, I don’t know. Insurance cost and safety may not be high on your priorities. However, I do recommend that one always check insurance costs before buying so that there are no unpleasant bills arriving that can make an economical car, not so economical.
When shopping I check safety, reliability, fuel economy, insurance cost, ease of (DIY)repairs and parts availabilty, dealer support, and of course driving pleasure, just to name a few items. I dislike wasting money on needlessly high insurance. It’s the “gift” that keeps on giving.
Hm. Where’s that information coming from, then? The safety ratings I found had both of them grading out above average.
I can’t say which would be more reliable. I’ve always personally had good luck with Chrysler vehicles. If the Sebring has a 2.7 liter engine, I’d use synthetic oil in it, as it’s prone to sludging. How about driving both and seeing which one you like and enjoy more? Parts for the Chrysler are likely to be much easier to find and possibly cheaper as well. My ex-girlfriend had a Kia. I was initially impressed with the fit n’ finish of such a cheap car, and it drove fairly nice and was peppy for a budget 4-cylinder. By 50,000 miles though it felt worn and tired, and the car was scary on the highway in a strong crosswind and at speeds in excess of 80—not that most people drive that fast. The seats were murder on long trips too. Personally I’d factor in which is more fun and comfortable to drive as much as possible reliability.
Highway Loss Data Institute
David, sorry it took so long to respond. I’m not at all suggesting that these cars are not safe. However, I use this site to do a “quick check” of insurance companies’ loss payouts, as this relates to insurance premiums. The cars are “graded” by insurance companies based on payout histories. Since there are so many variables, company, drivers, records, etcetera, I also recommended giving your agent the information on the specific vehicles you are considering and receiving actual premium information, if this matters to you. It’s just one thing I do to avoid a shock later on. My agent expects several calls from me when I car shop. She’s more than happy to assist. You may find that they compare favorably with what you already pay in premiums. Good Luck!
A historic point on “Rust Belt”. It has nothing to do with rotting cars. It has to do with the closing of steel factories and manufacturing industry leaving that area with rusty old machinery.
But the term overlaps the geographic region where rust occurs on vehicles or at least used to.
I concur with common sense on insurance costs. Both cars you are considering are not top tier ever in anything. However currently they suffer from significant depreciation my guess of why they appeal to you, economics. Insurance differences can be quite different across makes. And interestingly insurers too.
Maybe this was the case in the 1970s-80s, but not anymore. I live in an area that gets as much snow and road salt as any other place in the USA (just 35 miles west of the aforementioned Oswego NY) and the modern Japanese vehicles hold up as well as the domestics, often better. I hate one case examples, but I will use a couple…I drove a 93 Corolla until summer 2007. With 204,000 miles on it, I saw showing rust above the rear wheel wells only. And that is after 15 years of upstate NY salt. Meanwhile, my 2001 Caravan was rusting THROUGH the hood on the driver’s side. I drove a 2001 Chevy pickup for awhile and its steel wheels were rusting after about three years. These are single cases, but I pay attention to cars, and I see these are trends. It isn’t just my old Corolla that was not rusting…it’s every one I see. It’s not just my Caravan with hood rust…its nearly every one I see. It’s not just my Chevy pickup with rusty steel wheels…it’s every one I see.
As a side note, the guy who bought my Corolla still drives it around. It has 225K on it now…but it has become rustier I have noticed.
What was a problem with my Corolla in terms of corrosion was rotting brake and fuel lines after 10 years of our climate…those things were always needing to be fixed!
My current vehicle, a 2004 Mazda Tribute (i.e. Ford Escape) has no rust anywhere. Escapes and Tributes were released in late 2000, and I see those 2001 models all the time…no rust anywhere. Apparently they are doing something right!
The number one factor in determining the cost of your insurance premium has nothing to do with the car. It’s your credit score.
Credit Score is one a few major components that relate to insurance premiums. It is relatively new with the newest factor college education(BS & beyond) helping you further. The last call to Progressive for address update I got an additional $100 off my yearly $900 premium on two vehicles 
I was under the impression that insurance rates were a funtion of who you are (gender, marital staus, age) and where you live, as well as what you drive.
A magazine did a nationwide survey some time back and had some interesting stats. A single male driver under 25 who drives a Corvette in New Yor City pays $12,000 or so for a basic package. A retired couple living in a small Mid-Western town who drive a Toyota Corolla would only pay about $750 per yearf or the same coverage.
In both cases, the drivers would have a clean driving record. I’m not sure what your credit rating has to do with your driving record or eligibility for insurance.
I do understand that some companies rate musicians, clergymen, migrant workers, as higher risks. In most Western countries that would be illegal and be classified as discrimination.