13th Nov 2009, 10:00

After selling Chryslers for 13 years and Hondas for 4 years, there is no comparison.

Chrysler - poor fuel economy overall.

Honda - good to great fuel economy overall.

Chrysler - put price on safety (extra charges for ABS, side airbags).

Honda - all safety equipment since 2006 standard.

Chrysler - lots and lots of issues with quality.

Honda - very few issues.

Chrysler - always promised to get better, never really did.

Honda - seeks 120% quality everyday, every time.

I stuck with Chrysler all those years and drove them too. 1995 Grand Cherokee, 1999 Chrysler Sebring, 2002 Dodge Intrepid and 2005 PT Cruiser

Every other one was a piece of junk mechanically.

You do not get that with Honda.

Much better fuel economy, reliability, safety and resale value.

This is what keeps the smart buyer coming back time and time again.

13th Nov 2009, 11:24

To 16:35

Thank you for your comment. Our Honda was a NIGHTMARE of never-ending problems. Our current GM and Ford vehicles are absolutely flawless. At 85,000 miles our GM has never had a single problem of ANY kind. By that time the Honda had gone through just about every part from the front bumper to the back bumper. It was also drinking a quart of oil every 500-700 miles. Not exactly my idea of "quality".

13th Nov 2009, 20:52

When my son picked up his new Dodge Viper, he had much different sentiments. Bulletproof great Chrysler that was worth a lot of hard work to finally acquire. I have another relative with a 70 Cuda that also beats driving any Honda I can think of.

14th Nov 2009, 02:50

I would like to know if the Honda Accord V6 2008 models are having continuous brake pads and disc problem in America just like in Nigeria. The brakes wear out in maximum of 2 months at the rate of 1000 miles per month. A lot of mechanics are saying this is the only problem with this unique shape beautiful car.


14th Nov 2009, 10:47

"Chrysler - poor fuel economy overall"

Not so in our case. Our Honda Civic got nowhere NEAR the gas mileage of our Dodge Omni and Dodge Daytona (both of which got 35+). Also, neither the Omni nor the Daytona ever required any repairs (both went well over 100,000 miles). The Civic was one problem after another.

15th Nov 2009, 12:59

"Bulletproof great Chrysler"

"Bulletproof" and "great" are two words that have no place in any sentence that also contains the word Chrysler.

(Unless of course "bulletproof" now means troublesome, and "great" now means mediocre)

15th Nov 2009, 15:50

How you drive a vehicle certainly plays a role. My Civic gets over 45 MPG on a regular basis. My old Dodge Neon got 32 MPG on a GOOD day.

16th Nov 2009, 11:58

Okay, you say you are going to buy a new car every few years, so why are you so concerned with a long warranty you'll never use? The warranty is not a gauge of how competent the car is. It is merely marketing to sell cars so buy what you like and don't worry about the warranty when you'll be trading it in a few years anyway.

16th Nov 2009, 12:04

Talk about apples and oranges! You compare a $100K+ hand built super car and a classic muscle car to a Honda? Try to be realistic here. Both of your examples have absolutely nothing in common with the average Honda and are in two entirely different universes.

Try commenting that your relative has a Stratus that went 200K miles without any problems and that makes sense in comparison to a Honda. One could only wish that Chrysler put even 10% of the build quality in the rest of their line that you'll find in the Viper!

16th Nov 2009, 12:07

Why would you compare fuel mileage and reliability of 20+ year old cars (that Chrysler no longer even makes) and think it has relevance to an argument for today's stats?

16th Nov 2009, 20:41

12:04 sure, why not? It's a Chrysler right so be more specific. You can read about the Chrysler salesman making comments about both. You can buy a used Viper for the price of some new Acura models. I will take many Chryslers over Honda. The Challenger would be another.

16th Nov 2009, 21:34

Because our Civic was only one year older than our Dodge Omni, so it was certainly worthy of the comparison. I know newer Civics get (in rare cases) over 30 mpg, but I was comparing our 1989, which got about 22 mpg during the few good days that it actually ran.

17th Nov 2009, 05:39

If you spend over 50k for a new Acura, how is it so far fetched to compare it to a new Challenger or 3 year old used Viper. I had problems with my Acura, even with it being a top of the line Honda.

17th Nov 2009, 16:01

"I know newer Civics get (in rare cases) over 30 mpg"

I get over 45 MPG out of my Civic. Try looking at the reviews on here. Most people who own Civics get within the high 30's if not more. I don't know what "rare cases" you're talking about. I think YOU were the rare case that a Civic got bad mileage!

17th Nov 2009, 16:39

"The sacrifices that we're gonna make in this company are gonna be greater at the top," Jones says. She and other executives anticipate 30 percent salary cuts this year, while middle managers and salaried staff expect 20 percent cuts."

This is taken from CBS Evening news online article. It is about Toyota pay-cuts. Notice that while Toyota is suffering a bit, the pay cuts made are largest at the top. Unlike GM and Ford where pay-cuts were aimed mainly at the assembly line workers and not from the big wig executives.

"Built 21 years ago as Toyota's foothold in North America, the heavily automated Kentucky plant is 7.5 million square feet, or as big as 156 football fields. It takes 20 labor hours there to build a Camry from scratch, about half the time being painted.

Factory workers are not unionized and earn up to $70,000 a year. No one has ever been laid off."

Same article. Read that last sentence. NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN LAID OFF. That's darn good.

"Unlike the Big Three American automakers -- GM, Ford, and Chrysler -- Toyota, which supports 14 plants in North America, is not asking any government for a bailout. Toyota plans to keep production down throughout this year, so inventory does not pile up."

Good idea huh? Very much unlike the Big 3 who let cars pile up on dealer lots something wicked.

Even in rough times Toyota is playing it smarter. $70,000 a year is not a bad paycheck by any means. I wish I made 70 big ones a year!

I was amazed by the fact that nobody had been laid off. While Toyota may employ a fewer number of people here in the U.S., do those Americans not get the same credit as someone who works for Ford building Fusions? (Oh wait, those would be Mexicans.)

17th Nov 2009, 18:40

Well that's funny, The Civic CRX HF got around 55 mpg in 1989. That's better than almost all of the hybrids today, and it is 20 years ago now...

17th Nov 2009, 18:44

"12:04 sure, why not? It's a Chrysler right so be more specific."

Any car you spend over 5 times as much on should be better. To compare two cars from such completely different classes and price ranges just doesn't make any sense. The Viper is a very limited hand built car... not an assembly line daily driver like an Accord.

Like I said, compare the Stratus to the Accord or the Avenger, which by the way gets horrendous reviews. The car magazines all put it about last in any comparison test. Honda seems to be at the top or near it still.