7th Dec 2009, 17:12
Well I had to replace the intake manifold twice on my Windstar. It became so clogged with build-up that it left me stranded twice. I only use Mobil gasoline, and I use the recommended octane for my vehicles ALWAYS. My Chevrolet was eating pads at an alarming rate of 45,000 miles a set. (I drive about 95% of the time on an uncrowded highway.) The Windstar needed an alternator at 70,000 miles. And none of my domestics made 100,000 on the same transmission. I don't believe it's possible for a domestic to even do that. It's lucky for you that your domestics worked.
My Honda's have been excellent to me. First one made over 450,000 miles completely original. Second made over 300,000 miles completely original, third made over 250,000 with the replacement of a muffler only (bottomed out, not the cars fault.) All my Honda's have been Accord's minus my current one, which is a Civic. It has 33,000 miles now and has been the best Honda I've had so far.
8th Dec 2009, 19:27
7th Dec 2009, 17:12.
It's lucky for you that your domestics worked.
Well, since I've had similar experience with the dozen or so domestics I've owned, it does not appear to be a fluke. It's either the quality of the cars, or my driving/maintenance habits, or both. If you're happy with your Hondas, that's fine, but if you truly don't believe that American cars are as good as I'm saying, maybe you should consider trying one. A lot has changed since 1996. And sadly, the '96 Windstar has one of the worst reputations around, so it's not exactly fair to condemn the entire domestic auto industry on that one experience.
On the other hand, my 1997 Mercury Sable with the 3.0 L Vulcan has 180,000 miles on it, and still gets 29 mpg -- no repairs except spark plugs, brakes/tires, and fluid changes, so Ford did also make some really good cars in that time frame despite the bad one that you got. I guess I don't see how it would be possible to do better for reliability than that.
It's funny, though, my in-laws are the same way. They had a Caravan 20 years ago that the paint peeled off, and went to Honda as a result. They rave about how their Honda Accords are so wonderful because they have 120,000 miles on them. When I say that my 2002 Ford has the same mileage and also no repairs, they get blank expressions, like they don't know what to make of it. How could that be possible when we "know" domestics always break down?!? Well, maybe it isn't true.
10th Dec 2009, 11:21
I know it is hard for people to recover from decades of brainwashing and myths perpetrated by billions of dollars in Japanese advertising and media manipulation. No domestic we've owned in 40 years EVER required a repair before 100,000 miles. No import we ever owned even MADE 100,000 miles. Now even the fact that all major automotive sources rate domestics even or better than imports seems to have no effect on those indoctrinated by the ad hype. Logic and reason doesn't matter, nor does the destruction of 14,000,000 American jobs. All that matters is walking around with a blank stare chanting "IMPORTS ARE BETTER... IMPORTS ARE BETTER" over and over. Citing J.D. Powers (which ranks a Ford and GM product as number one in long-term reliability) or Consumer Reports (which ranks the Fusion fully TWO LEVELS higher than Camry) is pointless. Facts don't matter. It has become a religion. It's blasphemy to criticize the almighty Japanese car.
2nd Aug 2010, 13:01
1979 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz traded in @ 230K km (air suspension, A/C, console lights, headlights, exhaust and a score of other things failed).
1984 Cavalier rear ended, scrapped due to accident @ 185K km (nothing).
1986 Buick LeSabre sold @ 260K km (transmission, water pump and alternator).
1986 Olds Delta 88 wagon scrapped @ 165K Km (engine failure).
1990 Honda Prelude rear ended, scrapped due to accident at 220K km (pressure loss in one cylinder, alternator 2x).
1990 Olds Delta 88 scrapped due to engine failure at 230K km (alternator, water pump).
1994 Ford Probe GT (Mazda engine) sold @ 190K km (belt tensioner, alternator).
1998 Honda Civic sold @ 230K km (nothing, still on the road).
2002 Toyota Avalon given away @ 200K km (power brake booster, still on the road).
This is my experience thus far. I'm Canadian and could not care less about the domestic vs foreign debate as none of these cars are Canadian. Honda did better in my experience then others. That's all.
11th Nov 2010, 07:47
I am from Ukraine. I see a lot of American and European cars, which are 20 or 30 years old. And they still look more or less solid. I have not seen Japanese of that age. If there are some more or less old, they are miserable flimsy wrecks. The new ones look as though they were designed by kids. Stupid designs. A person over 40 years old would look like a fool sitting in one of them. And all this chant "relllllliability, qualllity" just makes me sick.
I have also noticed that many owners of Japanese cars are self-righteous dudes. You Americans cannot even imagine how brain-washed people in Russia and Ukraine are about the perceived quality of Japanese vehicle here. Ads everywhere - plain stupid, but they appeal to the brainwashed herd with money here. A Honda CR price starts at 35.000 US dollars. Toyota RAV starts at 30.000 US dollars. Honda Accord starts at 31.000 US dollars. If I had that much money, I would buy a BMW 3 series (32.000 US dollars). People, get real!
19th Apr 2011, 16:07
All right, I do not own a Civic, but my room mate does.
A couple months ago, we took a trip from Chicago to LA. My feelings about the Civic are that it has good handling, good brakes, and gets great gas mileage.
Now my problem is when we hit the hills and then the mountains, is how hard the car has to rev to maintain speed. It down shifts to 3rd, and is bouncing between 5500 and 6000 rpm to keep 65 to 70 in the mountains. Listening to the engine revving for hours of mountain driving was draining. Also, the gas mileage through the mountains dropped big time, averaging high teens to lower twenty's.
I have owned many different cars over the years, and I do this trip at least once a year. Both of my the Audi's with the bi turbo 2.7 averaged 25 in the same parts of the mountains, and did not have to down shift and rev in high rpm ranges.
I am not and would not say the Civic is a bad car; I just wish it had more bottom end torque. Great car for around town runs, great for shorter trips like under 6 hours, but long distance with varying terrains, it get draining.
Now one other big plus I have to mention is I am 6.4, and the one thing I always look for in smaller cars is can I see street lights without having to duck under the roof line, and the Civic hits that right on. Can always see the street lights, and greatly love that.
Only other thing I have discovered, and this is not Honda's fault, but you have to be careful of the dealership you take your car too. We did take the car to one of the Honda dealers in LA, and they tried to sell us on new brakes. What made me feel outraged is that there were new brake pads put on less that 5000 before that trip. I have learned over the years that it does not matter who you go or what brand of car you buy; some dealers are honest and some are not.
But to finish off, it is an OK car; I like the basics about it, but I do not like how the engine delivers power to the road.
If I was to buy a Honda for myself, I would probably buy the V6 Accord. Had one in the past and loved it, but I am not fond of the 4 in the LX Civic.