Should word get out that Toyota/Honda no longer makes the best cars?

Yup, Obama’s Cash For Clunkers program did boost the price of used cars. You can’t honestly try to tell me you haven’t read that before? I’m not the first to see a connection.

Yes, he does have something to do with people keeping their cars til they fall apart and with reduced new car sales. Businesses large and small are not expanding due largely to lack of confidence in the ecnomy and lack of knowing what their financial obligations will be when ObamaCare kicks in. When businesses don’t expand, people don’t get jobs or better jobs. When that ceases, people stop buying.

And there no longer exists the housing equity to give people confidence that if they commit themselves now they’ll be okay in the future. Heck, far too many of them are in trouble even now. Housing is in the hopper. There are an estimated 11 million households that are “upside down” on their mortgages. There are 7 million that are behind. And as of 2012, those homeowners that went into foreclosure will have to pay “unearned income” taxes on the amount that the bank forgave them. In short, if you owe $200,000, the house goes into foreclosure, and the bank sells the house for $100,000, “forgiving” the $100,000 balance, you’ll have to pay income taxes on the $100,000 that the bank forgave…even if the value of the house at time of sale is only $100,000. Wait until THAT economic tsunami hits!

Obama isn’t fully responsible for the economic mess we’re in, but he certainly shares the blame. If you think there’s enough discretionary income out there to reinvigorate the new car market I disagree. And I doubt if any credible economist would now say that the Cash For Clunkers program helped to do so. There are, however, many who are saying that it drove the price of used cars up.

I’m not differentiating in these commenst between domestic and foreign brands. All are riding the same waves. The only difference is that those with sturdier boats (better operated companies) and more ballast (more capital reserves) will weather the storm better than those who’ve not maintained their boats or don;t have sufficient ballast.

And as of 2012, those homeowners that went into foreclosure will have to pay “unearned income” taxes on the amount that the bank forgave them. In short, if you owe $200,000, the house goes into foreclosure, and the bank sells the house for $100,000, “forgiving” the $100,000 balance, you’ll have to pay income taxes on the $100,000 that the bank forgave…even if the value of the house at time of sale is only $100,000. Wait until THAT economic tsunami hits!

Wow. If that happens, most people will probably burn their houses down so they won’t foreclose on it. Atleast the insurance money will go to help pay the house off, let the bank have the ash and rubble for themselves.

“Obama isn’t fully responsible for the economic mess we’re in, but he certainly shares the blame. If you think there’s enough discretionary income out there to reinvigorate the new car market I disagree”

Two wars fought while reducing taxes and asking no one to pay for it. Deregulation and lack of enforcement on the private sector. The most pork going to the states during an 8 year period ever. Most economist say that and not any bailout accounts for 90% of our deficit and !00% responsibility for our recession. Digging out isn’t coming fast enough for most, but going back to the Bush policies is a sure path towards a depression. That’s exactly what the other side favors. Talk about tunnel vision.

The purpose of cash for clunkers was to stimulate “new car sales” not to reduce used car prices. Don’t blame Obama if you would rather buy a used car from scant inventory and high prices instead of a new car.

Most people except the upper escelon of bankers and businessmen took a hit on net worth from homes, investments, and other assets. Whether or not you are under water is mostly a result of when a home was purchased. Newbies with no money down had no cushion. You just have to be able to ride the storm out for a few years. This isn’t the first time.

A real issue though is the stagnant disposable incomes over the past 20 plus years for those in the bottom 90% and the accelerated incomes for those in the upper 10%. The good ole GOP was largely responsible for that. So stagnant incomes and a hit on net worth equals lowered economic activity. Don’t fall for the Chamber of Commerce BS that businesses are afraid of the future. They have substantial cash on hand but are not spending it because they don’t have to. Yeah right, giving them more money will really help, huh?

How did this get to burning houses?!

I buy what I see fit. At some point we needed a minivan, test drove many and a Caravan was the best deal for us on the used market. Recently we needed a CUV, the used Escapes/Equinox’s were really falling apart. Might had been the previous owners’ fault but I looked at plenty. The Saturn Vue was nice but didn’t find one that reflected the price of a busted name. The CRV and RAV4 were nicer. The price on the used market was so high that we decided to buy new. Now even if quality was the same, if you know something is worth 70% of the original price in 3 years, would you buy the othe brand that only retains 50% of its value? This is just simple math and even if my dad owned stuck in Ford/GM, I would tell him sorry.

Exactly Galant. People shy away from new and spend countless hours looking and evaluating used. When you look at the low interest rates, long trouble free warrantees, and not having to worry about previous owner service records and so on, it is really a mistake to not consider new if that’s what fits your needs.

Over the years, there have been men on this URL who insult and mock content Toyota and Honda owners. A couple have even used the word “gullible” to describe happy T and H owners.

For the most part, these men are in several categories. A few actually want a car to work on, because they love to work on cars. They delight in taking a car that is out of commission and making it good again. To spend Saturday changing some part is fun, so they really don’t count that as a serious repair.

Others who mock T and H never owned one. Or, in some cases, they bought an old, abused clunker, because they didn’t want to pay the big money for a good used one. Then, they announce T and H are junk, because they had to work on theirs all the time.

A very few simply want to feel superior, by claiming a group of people don’t know what they are doing. I have a brother much like that.Years ago, when he had an old Beetle, he swore they were the best car in the world, and mocked “road sow” owners. The minute he sold it, he denounced the Beetle as over-rated, and his Dodge Dart was the best car in the world. Etc.

T and H did not become popular because people are stupid or gullible, or misinformed. They became popular because people who were used to taking their cars to the shop for repairs on a regular basis, bought a T or H, and drove them for years with no serious repairs.

The dash didn’t fall down. The glove compartment didn’t flop around The doors didn’t stop closing securely with normal force. And, if they pulled their maintenance, the motor outlasted their desire to drive the same car year after year.

My eldest son had a junker, and now is a dedicated Honda owner.

My son-in-law had his Contour in the shop all the time; the wiring harness even went bad and had to be replaced. He got an Isuzu thingie, and it ran great until around 120,000 miles when those stupid cooling system o-rings started failing. He fixed it, but this spring it developed a major gas odor, my guess is fuel regulator, but he had a baby to drag around, so he got his second Odyssey. He now is a dedicated Honda owner and swears he will never drive anything else.

When we retired in 1997, we had an old 9 passenger wagon, and it did well on long trips, 1500 miles in two days, until some guy in Austin failed to stop with traffic.

We then bought a nice looking 1989 Caravan with 120,000 miles. Most of the three years we had that vehicle, we’d leave McAllen in the morning, and drive to Amarillo, a 13 hour drive. Then, we’d make an appointment at the mechanic. Then, we’d leave Amarillo and drive 900 miles to the Midwest, and make another appointment. When we got back to McAllen, we’d make another appointment.

We drove it around 60,000 miles in 3 years. And, we never did get the over-heating stopped. But,that makes sense because the Caravan has a little, toy radiator.

Finally, after the major damaged head repair and the transmission failure, I said enough, and in 2001, a few weeks after the terrorist attack, we decided to buy a new Sienna.

I haven’t taken a long distance cross the USA trip since October 2009, when we put 5,000 miles on it. When we leave McAllen, we know we will be sleeping near OKC that night, or maybe in Central Lousiana. And, the next day we also know where we will be sleeping. Up to 6 days round trip, and the only time we have gone to a mechanic is when maintenance is due. For example, we had the timing belt, I think, replaced per maintenance recommendations, in the Quad Cities, since were going to be there a week.

I assume eventually we will have a breakdown on the highway, it has to happen sooner or later, I think, but this 175,000 miles haven’t given us much grief.

And, the heat gauge acts like it’s glued in place. Going uphill in the Texas Hill Country when it’s 100+, at 3500 rpm and 70 mph, or 5000 rpm if the hill is really mean, that heat gauge does not move.

I am glad Ford and Chevrolet have started making good cars. I am one of those millions who don’t care. They abused us for decades, and I will not go back just because they finally realized they had to build quality cars.

There are people who don’t need the extra quality at extra cost. If a family knows they will trade at 100,000 miles, a Caravan will probably suit them.

Here in Mexico, labor is cheap. So, high reliability is not that big a deal.

The first question I would ask of MikeinNH is where he gets the statistics about Asian cars having fewer Recalls, TSBs, and chronic problems as compared to Big Three vehicles.

The next question would be that I’d like to hear an explanation of how he comes up with the statement that Big Three car owners may be fine because they seldom drive or keep their cars for 100k miles. Maybe where you live, but not here. Does this mean they do a “super good job” on the ones they build and ship to this part of the country?

Yet another question could be about the number of Asian car complaints on this forum, which I might add is not the sole source of Asian car problems. Out in the real world they break on the same percentage.

There are many things posted that are flat not true to be honest. Look at the ripping Chrysler gets over oil sludged 2.7 engines for one.
Yet another is the fairy tale myth that a Big Three car built in the 50s, 60s, or 70s is only good for 60k miles before it needs an engine rebuild and at times it’s stated that modern engines last longer because production tolerances are better.
A very, very thick book could be written giving such examples.

“The first question I would ask of MikeinNH is where he gets the statistics about Asian cars having fewer Recalls, TSBs, and chronic problems as compared to Big Three vehicles.”

The ultra LIBERAL mag… “Wall Street Journal”…Read it some time.

“The next question would be that I’d like to hear an explanation of how he comes up with the statement that Big Three car owners may be fine because they seldom drive or keep their cars for 100k miles. Maybe where you live, but not here.”

You either purposely mis-read what I say or you just have a reading comprehension problem…I NEVER EVER SAID that people who own Big Three cars only keep them to 100k miles…

What I said was that in General - MOST NEW CAR DRIVERS IN THE US only keep them 100k miles…I made no distinction between American car owners and Asian/European car owners. Please re-read my post above.

The point I made was that if you buy a NEW American car it will probably be fine because ALL cars should last 100k miles (no matter who the manufacturer is). SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

“Yet another is the fairy tale myth that a Big Three car built in the 50s, 60s, or 70s is only good for 60k miles before it needs an engine rebuild and at times it’s stated that modern engines last longer because production tolerances are better.”

I don’t know anyone who’s ever said that…You surely NEVER heard me say it…So don’t imply that I did…in fact in this forum I’ve stated…MANY MANY times that GM/chryco and Ford produced EXCELLENT cars back then…lasting far longer then do now…My Malibu SS had over 340k miles on it when I sold it…My brother-in-laws Scamp with the Slant-6 was closing on 500k miles when he finally sold it…both engines were original and NEVER torn into…

You want to keep buying American cars…GREAT…good for you…They’ve given you GREAT service…EXCELLENT…again GOOD FOR YOU…But that doesn’t mean that everyone here has had the same experience…I was born in the early 50’s…grew up with American Built cars and trucks…Loved them dearly for decades…What you think all of a sudden I woke up and said “Gee…Japanese make superior cars…I should buy them.”…I ONLY started buying Nissan/Toyota and Honda’s when my GM and Chryco cars were costing me THOUSANDS just to keep them running from one week-end to the next. If there were HALF as reliable as you THINK they are I never would have switched…There’s a good chance they are now making reliable cars now…but I’m not going to test it out…I know the quality of cars I’ve been buying for the past 25 years…why take the change…I don’t have that kind of money to waste.

Galant, you’re right that we wandered off subject. We got there via the discussion about rising used car prices, which was a topic in the original post, and I have ot take responsibility for that tangent. I’ll try to get back on topic.

OK4450, I would argue that a major reason modern engines last longer is because the tolerances that they’re produced to are tighter tolerances, although that’s not quite the terminology I’d use. I think it would be more accurate to say that they’re produced far more accurately to the optimal dimensions and far more consistantly. Critical dimensions now are controlled to a small fraction of the variation they used to be. The process variation around the optimal dimension is controlled rather than the dimension itself. Better and more consistant parts means better fitment in the sub assemblies, and that means less wear, less blowby, and other benefits contributing to longevity.

There are, of course, other reasons. Advances in materials, lubricants, design technology, casting technology, and cleaner operation all contribute to longevity. And advancements in materials, coatings, design, welding, and bonding technologies all have contributed to body structures that don’t rot out like the old days. There’s also less raw gas in the blowby, for a whole plethora of technical reasons, and I’m sure that helps. And lubricants have improved.

I think cars last a lot more miles also because with modern highways and the subsequent deurbanization (suburbanizataion?) of populations people drive a lot more miles than they used to. I typically put three times as many miles per year on my car as my dad did on his old early '60s Bonneville. I still remember the kachunk, kachunk, kachunk as my dad drove the old concrete road to the beach, now replaced by a modern divided superhighway.

A lot has gone into making cars today last far longer. That ain’t myth.

As regards the difference in Toyotas, Hondas, and othere makes, I can only speak for my own experience. I’ve had much better luck with Toyotas and Honda than I had with my GMs. Even though I know the gap has closed, that’ll still influence my buying decisions.

@the same mountainbike:

You’re correct about loan forgiveness on mortgages becoming taxable again - as it historically has been… but there is a very good reason why it has historically been taxable. Taxing forgiveness of a loan reduces fraud and tax evasion.

Think of it this way. Imagine I get $75,000 per year in salary and bought a $150,000 home on a 30 year fixed rate loan at 5%. Every year I’d pay $9,662.79 in total mortgage payments. Now let’s say I don’t have to pay taxes on loan forgiveness. My employer in return sets up a plan where they buy the home for me and I pay them the interest due on the loan, with them forgiving the principal that I otherwise would have had to pay. In the first year, I’d pay $7,449.74 in interest (the same as if loan forgiveness was not taxable). For me, out of pocket, the house suddenly became $2,213.05 cheaper in the first year. So for the same standard of living, my employer can now officially reduce my salary by $2,213.05 to $72,786.95.

Now wait - the employer is still paying that $2,213.05 to purchase the home. Sure… but if they can simply “forgive” the principal, there are major tax advantages. First off, I get to pay lower income taxes because my listed taxable income is lower. Second, my employer and I both pay lower FICA taxes because my taxable income is lower. If I’m in the 25% tax bracket, the income tax break is worth $553.26 and the FICA break is worth $338.60 between us… overall, my employer and I just avoided $891.86 in taxes by structuring the deal as an untaxable transfer of wealth by “loan forgiveness”.

This is just one example of the accounting shenanigans that can go on and a good reason why loan forgiveness was considered taxable income - it is a way to increase your net worth, just as receiving income is…

@MikeinNH - please tell me you’re joking when you claim that the Wall Street Journal is a “ultra LIBERAL mag”

Yes…obviously I’m joking…I know it’s NOT a liberal MAG…that was my point.

As for loan forgiveness becoming taxable…I know a guy who was burnt badly by that…This was years ago (back at the big mortgage meltdown of the early 90’s). Bank forgave him of a 100k loan on a condo that was worth only $25k…difference of $75k he had to eat…and pay taxes on…Lost his marriage because of that decision.

I would never trust the Wall Street Journal to tell me about cars, either…

Consumer Reports, properly interpreted, is a great source. Warranty Direct has (in the past) put out great info on warranty claims. MSN Autos publishes reliability data based on actual mechanics reports. True Delta uses owner reports but with better methodology than consumer reports (although their elimination of confidence intervals in their reports is a BIG negative, IMO). Consumer Guide even uses mechanics reports…

Put them all together, interpret them carefully, and you get a pretty good picture - one that supports the idea that almost all manufacturers make some VERY good cars and many make a lemon or two… but the differences are far overblown and perceptions are dated. Comparisons of TSBs and recalls are dangerous, as TSBs are often for inconsequential details or improved service methods (I’ve seen them for something as simple as manual misprints or faster ways to change struts - neither of which affect reliability)… and recall comparisons back beyond just a few years get distorted as reporting rules for recalls were different for imported vehicles and domestically produced vehicles not that long ago…

@MikeInNH - about the loan forgiveness… that’s unfortunate, to say the least… but as I said, there is a good reason why it has been considered taxable income. There are definitely arguments for it and against it… but in general I’m for it simply to avoid rampant tax fraud and evasion.

WSJ is great for reporting on Companies and their products. Not from a reliability point of view, but just general facts about their products. How they are made, who makes them…recalls…stuff like that. And if they (being a very conservative) company is complaining about American made products…it carries a lot more weight then a perceived “Liberal Mag”.

And personally I don’t swear by any of them…I use several sources in making my buying decision…also personal experience and family and friends experience. One time when looking for a new SUV…I looked at the Ford Explorer…Talked with my brother-in-law who’s a rabid Ford fan…He LOVED his Explorer…Then after we were talking…and started digging into the actual facts…it wasn’t that reliable…With only 80k miles on it…he already had spent $2000 in REPAIRS…He was comparing it to his Wifes Taurus’s…which were junk…Yea the Explorer was more reliable then them…but not as reliable as I’ve been use to for the past 25 years.

In 5 years when I’m ready to buy a new vehicle (I figure I’ll have 300k on it by then)…my thoughts may change…and maybe my opinion of GM/Ford and Chryco…They changed 25 years ago…so they might change again…We’ll see

I’m for the Tax also…Too many people buying well over their means…and then when they can’t afford it…walk away…with no penalties what-so-ever.

I’m going home early. MikeInNH and I agree on something, so the end must be near. :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t disagree that the tax was implemented for a good reason. And at the time it was implemented, a time when home values appreciated every year and NOBODY could have foreseen what has happened, they weren’t a problem for the honest folk. Now the world has flip-flopped. My fear is that in the interest of raising revenue the tax will be allowed to reinstate and a wave of fiscal insanity will follow, with the honest working folk ending up “holding the bag”. Or, perhaps the financial community will suddenly have lots and lots of mortgages that they’ve bundled and sold on the secondary market that won’t be worth anywhere near the numbers on the papers.

This rough ride isn’t over. Not by a longshot.

irelands: Is it ok to mock Honda if we actually owned one? :stuck_out_tongue:
Good cars, yes, but boring driving experience. I also have to mock them for their new gadget in the Si; the VTAK gauge
I also owned a Contour and it gave me several problems as well; my mom’s Contour on the other hand, gave her a good 10 years of driving. I swore of Ford for several years after that, saying the only Ford I’d own would be a Mustang. I’ve gotten over that view and was considering a Ford Escape before I bought my Mazda. Though, them not taking any bailout money helped my viewpoint as well.

I think it was the CEO of GM I read about a couple days ago wanting to see another $1 tax in gas so people would buy more fuel efficient cars. Anyone who implements that would be committing political suicide