Things seem to be changing in regard to Toyota and Honda fairly quickly these days. My wife recently purchased a new Elantra. Test drove a Civic, Corolla and Cruze prior to making the decision.
The Hyundai was better than the Civic in many ways. Price, mileage, warranty were better, imo the interior quality on the Hyundai was better and it looks more upscale. The Chevy was the same, aside from the fact the ride seemed a little better than the Elantra’s. The Toyota was probably the most boring car I’ve ever driven, not to mention the uneven panel gaps on the inside.
Her Chevy Uplander had just about had it, and we didn’t have the luxury of waiting for the new Civic or Focus to arrive. Every review I’ve read rates the Hyundai at the top of it’s class, even when compared to the new Civic or Focus. The crash test rating came out recently and the Elantra earned a top score. Consumer Reports also rated it above average in predicted reliability as well as their top pick in it’s category. The Elantra is also spends the least amount of time of ANY car on the new car lot, two days! I also read that the Sonata was the fastest selling mid-size in May.
It also picked the new Optima over the updated for 2012 Accord. The Optima was more powerful, got better mileage and cost less. It was too new to predict reliability, but it surely should be as least as good as the Accord, which was only rated average.
So again, Hyundai/Kia certainly seem to be changing the perception of their brands almost overnight. Honda and Toyota have their work cut out for them.
Just received word from daughter that the transmission on her 03 Honda Van bit the dust, cannot be rebuilt and needs replacement for about $5k. So, as of 03, Honda did not build the best transmissions. I feel you have to accept that Honda and Toyota are not the same companies and in matters of high load vehicles where everything is based upon the Accord, Honda may have more than their share of problems. Toyota seems to have their truck base to draw from engineering wise. I’m still voting for model by model conclusion.
But then, I’m in a bad anti Asian mood as I was just presented a bill for $1500 to replace the three carbs at $350 each on a foolish little 30’hp Suzuki outboard. I’m paying now for not replacing my previous Honda OB with another. All companies are different, even the Asian ones.
Is that a CVT transmission? Personally, I am glad my Hondas have manual transmissions. If I was getting an automatic, I would probably get another brand myself.
Toyota and Honda are NOT the only ones that make a CVT transmission. Not sure what the failure rate is for GM’s or Ford’s CVT transmission is. I don’t like the design no matter who makes it. It’s a very very expensive throw away item. Can’t be rebuilt…Just cough up thousands of dollars if you have a problem with it.
“Toyota and Honda are NOT the only ones that make a CVT transmission.”
What brought that on? When did I ever say such a thing?
“I don’t like the design no matter who makes it. It’s a very very expensive throw away item. Can’t be rebuilt…Just cough up thousands of dollars if you have a problem with it.”
That’s why I asked. It’s pretty strange to see a transmission that isn’t a CVT and can’t be repaired.
Honda’s automatic (non-CVT) transmissions are not the most reliable. The Odyssey and the Civic both have a reputation for having unreliable automatic transmissions.
". . .I don’t like ANY big ticket item that can’t be repaired at all … ."
I agree with you, but I am afraid that this is the way the world is going. Willy Loman in “Death of a Salesman” complained about his Hastings refrigerator chewing up belts. Today, he would have to replace the compressor, but then find out that it made better economic sense to make payments on a new refrigerator. We are headed that way on automobiles as well if we aren’t there already.
I don’t know much about CVT transmissions, but I hope that they are better than the CVT transmissions that were used in the Subaru Justy back in the early 1980s.
I haven’t heard of widespread problems with CVTs on any Ford, Nissan, or Toyota application. GM had a very poor experience with the Saturn Vue, though…
Of course Honda’s transmission problems weren’t with CVTs - just plain old automatics, and it hit several Acuras, the Accord, Civic, and Odyssey…
Now a Honda with a manual transmission? Hard to beat for reliability.
From what little I have been able to find out, CVT transmissions have proven reliability, especially in compacts like the Prius. They are also offered in the Hylander hybrid. But, I don’t feel they are ready for prime time for heavy use vehicles and would be very reluctant to tow with one in the newer Subarus for example. Regardless of their reliability over all, the subcontractors that supply these things for the car companies are at the mercy of specs in the order and i wouldn’t eXpect an unreliable car in general to offer a reliable CVT.
I’m going to start another post on this issue to see if a clear cut answer is provided.
As to MikeinNH and the GM Onstar post that I had mentioned you starting maybe you do not remember the post very well.
You said GM was a pack of sleazebags for revamping the Onstar program a few years ago. I said nothing.
However, Tester stated that GM had no say-so in this because the Department of Defense took over the bandwidth.
At that point you (in so many words) said Tester was “wrong” in polite terms.
At that point I think it was also Tester who came back and provided a link from the Washington TImes or Washington Post with a press release from the DOD stating just what Tester said it did.
“Circuit smith” you will have to argue that point with Toyota and Wikipedia who both claim they do. Like a hydrostatic is a type of cvt w/o the belts, they claim that their ECVT operates in a fashion similar to belted kinds. Regardless, any non hydrostatic cvt is not good for heavy use and even hydrostatic needs range restriction controls to select proper load work.
When most people refer to CVT, and the problems repairing/rebuilding them, they often are referring to the belt/cone type. The ‘Synergy’ drive uses a CVT, but one that achieves infinitely variable ratios, by manipulating the speed of the two electric and one gas motors that all connect to a set of planetary gears. So the ‘CVT’ part of a Prius is actually not all that complicated, it’s all the other stuff hooked up to the gearset.
If you had an iPad that kept interrupting with it’s own opinion, you’d get "circuit smith " .
Btw, there are still other continuously variable transmissions. It does not have to be belt driven. Even lawn mowers have them now…with the belts of course. Personal pace Toro example.
"I’m going to start another post on this issue to see if a clear cut answer is provided.
As to MikeinNH and the GM Onstar post that I had mentioned you starting maybe you do not remember the post very well."
I suggest you re-read the original post OK
I stand behind my statement that GM Onstar executives ARE sleaze balls for NOT notifying potential buyers that the car they bought then would NOT work in the next year without a MAJOR upgrade (I think it was $1000 or more)…
As I had stated THEN and I’ll state again NOW…
YES…it was out Government that removed those frequencies…I admitted that…
Why I think GM executives are sleaze balls is because GM KNEW about this 3-4 years earlier. GM wasn’t given a 2 month notice…they were given at least 3 YEARS to prepare. But as usual…you misread (purposely or just because of pure ignorance) what I stated.
So instead of notifying their potential customers that their Onstar system would have to be upgraded or to simply retrofit all new car sales with the new frequencies they decided NOT to tell their customers let them eat the $1000 cost…
Not to get into the middle of a fight, but I’m curious what “MAJOR” upgrade was required for OnStar? The only one I’m aware of was when they switched from analog to digital service. From what I see, if you were willing to subscribe to OnStar for 1 year (non-refundable), GM was willing to upgrade your vehicle for $15. Seems like a pretty small charge to me…
eraser1998 -
The FCC required Onstar to stop using Analog signal and use only Digital signal. From the original post the OP stated that he was NOT notified about his Onstar system NOT working within a year after the purchase. And from what I remember it was going to cost him a lot of money to upgrade to the new system. From what you just posted…it looks like GM may have made the upgrade path easier…but it was still going to cost the consumer money (which it shouldn’t have).
My contention with GM is still that any potential buyers should have been notified of the upgrade BEFORE they bought their car…Or GM should have put the new Onstar systems in their cars when they first learned of the phase-out date.
First off back in 2002 the FCC notified everyone in who made telecom equipment that analog signals were being phased out. This gave companies plenty of time to prepare…Then in 2005 or 2006 the FCC gave a specific date as to when this would happen. The date was in 2008…Again giving companies plenty of time to prepare. If you bought a new cell-phone in 2007 from AT&T it still worked in 2009. In 2007 you were using AT&T’s analog network. But 2009 it was completely switched to digital. That phone you bought in 2007 still worked because it was a analog and digital device…Why couldn’t GM do that with their Onstar system???