Many times in the past I have stated unequivocally that the Big Three have plenty of problems; from Recalls to TSBs to chronic problems for which there is no Recall notice or TSB.
The pure and simple reason I did not mention the Big Three in the post where I linked to automotive stories stating the Asian cars were plagued with Recalls is to point out the fallacy of any statements (and there have been plenty) that Asian cars do not suffer the same proportionally.
Weeding the Recall issue out of the discussion, there is a reason why I quit working for Asian car dealers some years back and it’s the same reason other mechanics also throw in the towel.
In a nutshell it’s because Asian car warranty labor times are a losing battle and the paycheck suffers because of it. The easy money is often overriden by the daily grind of warranty repairs and keep in mind that the word “warranty” means the repair of a factory defect in materials or workmanship. This runs the gamut from window rattles to inoperative door locks to major engine or tranmsission problems.
Again, if one has never actually worked in this field and performed warranty work then you simply have no clue about what is going on.
Let me address the statement I made about production tolerances in another post due to length constraints.
I think far too much is being made of the phrase “tighter production tolerances”. Far too much. Modern car engines for example are not being machined and assembled with tolerances of a few ten thousanths of an inch except on paper.
Let me make the point in the following way.
We’ll use the critical connecting rod bearing oil clearance for the sake of discussion here and we’ll use the figures .001 to .003 as that is generally correct.
Modern car A comes from the engine plant with every rod bearing dead-on at .002.
Old car B from 40 years ago comes from the engine plant with clearances varying from .0016 to .0023.
Question (and with all things equal as to enviro, oil change and driving habits, etc).
Which engine will last the longest?
Answer? There are 2 of them actually.
It does not make one single iota of difference.
A modern car is not going to come out of the engine plant with tolerances that exact. It just ain’t gonna happen. You can pull half a dozen new cars off the lot and check crankshaft end play (which requires no disassembly) and only sheer luck will have 2 of them at the same spec. Put someone with a heavy foot behind a manual transmission car and it’s quite likely that in a few miles that end spec will be much different than it was when the car rolled off the line.
They’re production line engines and you may get ultra precision with a Bugatti Veyron or Lamborghini Gallardo but the market for 40k dollar Ford Escorts and Toyota Corollas is not going to be that deep.
I agree with you, OK…I think the main differences are in the actual assembly itself, and the newer fluids used. For example, new engines have the components installed by computers, and unless there’s a mechanical failure in the installation equipment, the (for example again) head bolts will all be tightened at the same time, to the same torque. This is far less likely to lead to warp and leaks from inconsistent pressures across the head. I don’t think I need to address the newer lubricants, as they’ve been debated lots of times.
When I got ready to shop for my first car, I took a look around to see who made the oldest cars still found on the road in large numbers. Of the cars I saw on the road, the cars that were more than 10 years old with more than 100,000 miles on their odometers were usually Hondas. To this day, I can still find 4th generation Civics (1988–1991) on the interstate, usually with at least 200,000 miles on the clock. The 5th generation Civic (1992–1995) sold in even larger numbers, and you can’t swing a stick without hitting one in a parking lot.
I realize it’s a chicken-and-the egg paradox. Are Hondas popular because they last a long time, or do they last a long time because they are popular with those who value longevity and take good care of their cars? All I can say is I am not gentle with my Civic, and it’s still going strong.
At the same time I bought my Civic, my girlfriend bought a Chevy Cavalier. Boy am I glad I didn’t buy a Cavalier.
“I think far too much is being made of the phrase “tighter production tolerances”. Far too much.”
Maybe not. A classic case is the automatic transmission used on small Fords and Mitsubishis in the 1980s. Ford used a Mitsubishi transmission and one assembled in the USA at the same time on the same car (Escort). They found that the Japanese transmissions had far fewer problems, despite having the same design. It turned out that by using statistical process control, Mitsubishi was able to maintain tighter tolerances than Ford did. Ford started using SPC as a result of this discovery. It wasn’t so much that the machines were different, but that they were used differently that led to better fit with the Mitsubishi transmission parts.
Bought a 2011 Civic Sedan “D”, automatic,Dec 19. Drive very little, 1976 miles, 84.4 gallons, 23.4 MPG mostly city some hiway. Max MPG jus at 27 with 100 hiway, 200 city. Honda dealer checked it twice, computer read outs, says all is good. Got better MPG on my 1997 Accord over same routes for 13.5 yrs, drove it whole time I had Accord, worse with Civic. No changes in routes, driving habits, nada.
Any speculation. Honda says nothing wrong, I beg to differ based on prior car.
I find the differences are blurring as Toyota, Isuzu, Kia and other so called Asian motors, trans missions and other parts are routinely subcontracted and used in American cars. Not to worry as American made parts are available as is labor to Asian manufacturers given import quotas and restrictions. The differences as I can tell are in the bean counters from each and which motors from where they are willing buy.
Didn’t Honda make a van for Saturn long ago ? Even the first domestic Tundra diesel will come from Isuzu, so let the so called experts debate over which is best when they may be the same. With the snap of their fingers, GM has and could co produce a car equal in quality and boring performance with Toyota. As we speaker, Toyota is preparing to test market the RAV EV with drive train components from Tesla, a red white and blue US company.
Buying a car from any particular car maker is like buying a Refrigerator from Sears. Do your research, and if it’s made like or from Frigidare or whomever, you make your decision. Cars are NO different in my very humble opinion and I do not feel pressured, intimidated or coerced into buying from any manufacturer of any automobile for any reason.
The are all homogenized. When I go to a dealer in my state to buy my recent Toyota products I have never seen a non US citizen servicing or selling them and they were all just as proud to sell and happy to take my money as the people from Ford or GM when I brought their products.
They all bragged about the value of their cars. My car purchases have sent American kids to college from both employees of both types of American dealerships.
So now with Apple selling computers made with the same CPU as all other computers, discussing individual differences in all things is a fun exercise but just that…And as OK points out, everything is available to everyone and it’s all about marketing.
"They’ve changed…so has the mileage. I know, it’s worse, but there’s not too much we can do except not buy them. "
WORSE??? I don’t think so…Almost every car I’ve owned from the 60’s and 70’s get WORSE gas mileage then any car I’ve owned in the past 20 years…They didn’t have the performance…didn’t weigh as much…and got better gas mileage…
I was talking specifically about this car, and the same make/model of a few years ago. We had another thread quite recently about this same thing, with this same vehicle. Guess I should have directed it at “grifffdog”
There were a number of what one could consider antiquated cars, by today’s standards, that would get better fuel mileage than many modern ones. A few examples below, all carbureted with little in the way of emissions for the most part.
'61 Pontiac Tempest a friend of mine owned. 30 MPG at a 70 MPH cruise.
'79 Subaru 1.6 at 45 MPG.
Early 80s carbureted 1.8 Subarus 40-42 MPG.
Air cooled VWs 40 MPG.
Even my '72 Monte Carlo 350 would get 21 at a highway cruise with the A/C on. Not shabby for a 4 barrel car loaded down on a vacation. A set of highway gears would have probably raised that to 25.
For every GM car suffering an intake manifold gasket problem there’s another make suffering an equally serious problem.
Ever seen an engine trashed because of a 1.00 dollar engine block O-ring that can’t be replaced without tearing the engine completely apart and which means a complete overhaul? Hello Subaru.
How about a trashed engine due to low engine oil caused by locating the overhead camshaft oil pressure port 1/4" away from the outer edge of the head gasket; where it would proceed to ooze oil down the side of the engine block. Nissan gets the credit for that one.
Ok…I had a 78 Subaru and was lucky to get 26/27 highway. Average mileage for me was about 23. It was a 2wdwagon, smaller and lighter then the awd Rav we now have which has much more power with the same mileage. Those were the days when 0 to 60 in ten seconds was good performance. Now it’s the 8 to 9 second range with bigger cars and more power robbing optional features.
MikeInNH, I think the percentage of owners suffering from centrifugal clutch failure in the King Midget was even higher than the GM cars suffering from intake manifold gasket failures. Fortunately, there were not that many King Midgets sold.
I find CR to be overall accurate…But you have to be careful when evaluating individual cars…Their data has been shown to be flawed on certain cars. Go pick up any issue of CR and you’ll find discrepancies in ratings between two identical cars, but branded differently…(i.e. Chevy Truck and GMC Truck).
But overall their data is good. And again…I use it as ONE source only. "
I’m not disagreeing with the idea that what they say is good is actually good… in fact, the way they do their ratings pretty much guarantees that any car that they say is good will, on average, be good. And those that they completely blast for reliability, are, in fact, bad on average… but its those middle-of-the-pack ratings… statistically, they’re just as good as the best (their ratings define the difference between average and the best to be a very small measured difference, but the difference between average and the worst to be a large measured difference).
So using them to eliminate cars is good, but taking the difference between the best and the average to mean anything is potentially eliminating a car that you would really like…
“MikeInNH June 16
eraser - Yea I know the intake-manifold isn’t a recall …I was just bringing up the point that it was a MAJOR problem for GM with 10’s of millions of cars effected…Yet people see Toyota with a recall that effects a 2 million cars (which I ALSO THINK IS BAD)…they point out…look GM NEVER had a recall like that…Maybe true…but that intake-manifold problem where it DESTROY’S your engine is pretty significant problem…And should NOT be ignored…
”
I think that was jtsanders you meant to refer to… I think that the GM problem was significant, absolutely… I also think that Toyota and Honda have managed to get away with similar behavior, though (tie rods on 4Runners come to mind)… though historically they (Honda and Toyota) haven’t done it as often…
“chaissos June 16
I was talking specifically about this car, and the same make/model of a few years ago. We had another thread quite recently about this same thing, with this same vehicle. Guess I should have directed it at “grifffdog”
”
Even comparing the same make/model of a few years ago is a bad comparsion, though.
For one, if you just go by the window stickers, the numbers are misleading as they aren’t directly comparable. For example, our old 87 Camry had a window rating of 25/31 when we bought it. Because of changes in test methods, the EPA estimates that car would only be rated at 22/28 today. On the other hand, a 2011 Camry is rated 22/32. So it looks worse than the original sticker on the 87, but it is better than what that 87 would look like now.
But that’s not the end of the story. That 87 Camry had 89 cubic feet of passenger space and 15 cubic feet of trunk space. The 2011 Camry has 101 cubic feet of passenger space and 15 cubic feet of trunk space. The closest Toyota to that 87 in terms of passenger space is now the Yaris, which has 87 cubic feet of passenger space.
So a direct comparison of the same make/model is faulty on two methods - one, the EPA rating method has changed, and two, cars have grown in size quite dramatically, so you often have to pick a different model to get to the same size and capability.
"#
WhiteyWhitey 7:38AM Report
Dagosa: “Didn’t Honda make a van for Saturn long ago?”
I believe Honda made the engine for the Saturn Ion.
Isuzu used to make the Honda Pilot. It was a rebadged Isuzu Trooper, and it was a piece of crap.
"
Actually, it was the Saturn Vue - it used a Honda engine and transmission if you got the V6 in 2004 or later… or a GM engine and Aisin (partially owned by Toyota) transmission or a GM/Fiat transmission (CVT) for the 4 cylinder.
The Saturn Ion always used a GM engine. It, however, did use a range of transmissions. They tried that GM/Fiat CVT, but it had reliability problems. They also tried an Aisin (partially owned by Toyota) transmission, but dumped it because of shift flare problems. They eventually settled on an old GM tranny…
As for the Pilot, it was always a Honda design, and never shared with Isuzu. The Pilot’s predecessor, the Passport, was simply a rebadged Isuzu Rodeo… interestingly, the Honda consistently got higher reliability ratings in Consumer Reports, when only the badging was different (showing the statistical variation in their ratings)