4th Jan 2007, 16:43
My 1994 Accord has only needed about 1000 dollars--including money spent on parts of the car that broke in previous accidents and having been treated badly. I have 250,000 miles now and I do not know any other car that was that cheap to run with that many miles. Just keeps on going. Bought it w/200,000 miles and it has costed as much as a car with 100,000 miles.
4th Jan 2007, 20:08
The first generation RX-7's were a reliability NIGHTMARE and were by no stretch of the imagination performance cars. I made the mistake of buying one thinking it was a sports car. It was slower than my non-turbo Dodge Omni, handled worse than a '79 Pinto I owned, and required CONSTANT repairs to keep it going. It might have made a good riding lawnmower if you could have installed a blade underneath it. Come to think of it, I've driven riding mowers that were faster and handled better!!
5th Jan 2007, 08:57
HMMM, well that is the polar opposite of everyone I've known whose owned one. Sounds like you're just another proAmerican yahoo who hates imports yet shops at Wal-Mart for communist goods.
5th Jan 2007, 16:41
Some years back I wanted an affordable sports car, and ran across a well-maintained '84 RX-7 with 80,000 miles on it. It had been owned by an older gentleman (a doctor) who had maintained it very well. I bought the car and it turned out to be the worst vehicle I ever owned. It leaked oil, was hard to start, shook so bad at 80mph that I was afraid to go any faster (if it would have, and I doubt it) for fear of shaking it to pieces. It also pulled badly to the left all the time. I took it to a shop specializing in front end repair and alignment and was told the car had the "Japanese Flimsies". When I asked what that was, the service technician explained that early Japanese cars used such flimsy steel in their sub-frame assemblies that after a few years they started to sag and bend just from the weight of the car. I asked what he'd recommend, and his response was "Get rid of it, it's garbage". I took his advice.
6th Jan 2007, 14:43
There was an article in a major news magazine (I think it was Time or Newsweek) several years back about how Japanese car makers used flimsier steel in their cars. There was concern that major frame components could fail after 200,000 miles of driving. That's a scary thought with people trying to keep these deathtraps on the road long after they should be sent to the crusher. Considering the number of domestic vehicles in the "million mile club" (quite a few) and the number of Japanese cars (ZERO) I'd say that is pretty good evidence that domestics are more reliable in the long haul.
6th Jan 2007, 17:40
I won't lose any sleep worrying about whether any of my cars makes the "million mile club" import or domestic.
7th Jan 2007, 16:57
I just read an article comparing the structural methods and materials used in the Toyota Tundra and Ford F-150. The F-150 is so much more ruggedly built (far better reinforcement, much more secure structural members and attachment methods) and the axle shaft sizes of the F-150 are about TWICE the diameter of those used in the Tundra. The Ford engine is all cast iron, whereas the Tundra uses a flimsy aluminum block and heads that are extremely prone to deform if even slightly overheated. I guess that is why you see F-150's with nearly half a million miles on them still on the road. I seriously doubt that even the body of the Tundra could hold together that long, let lone the very fragile aluminum engine.
7th Jan 2007, 22:58
I see Honda Crx's, Civics, Corollas, and Accords with a half million miles on them all the time, I cannot speak for the Tundra--but they are similar to the other Toyota vehicles. I can say mine has 250,000 miles and with the Minnesota salt it still has not rusted like some vehicles I have seen. Do you think that the 1997-2004 F-150's are really that tough? Just look at the crash test. I am not a scientist or engineer, but if a vehicles desintegrates once it hits a wall and kills all of its occupants, I would not call it strong.
8th Jan 2007, 09:10
Like so many people who cite crash testing results, the previous commenter has also fallen for the myth that larger vehicles such as trucks and SUV's are less safe in crashes than smaller, flimsier imported vehicles. His statement "if a vehicle disintegrates once it hits a WALL..." makes my point. Crash tests involve running vehicles into steel reinforced concrete walls. This is a RIDICULOUS method for testing real world safety. How often do real world crashes involve vehicles hitting a steel reinforced wall? Even most buildings vehicles might crash into are made of brick veneer and wood studs, which hardly makes a dent in a larger vehicle. Naturally a larger, heavier vehicle will have more kinetic energy due to its greater mass (I AM an engineer, incidentally) and when it hits an IMMOVABLE object (such as a steel reinforced wall) it will be carry more force than a smaller vehicle. However, in the real world when a larger, heavier vehicle hits a smaller, flimsier vehicle (and the comment regarding the Tundra and F-150 is a good comparison of the weaker structure of import vehicles) it will literally demolish the smaller vehicle without much damage at all to the larger vehicle. The next time you see a Civic that has collided with a Suburban, notice which one is hardly damaged and which one looks like a stepped-on beer can.
8th Jan 2007, 09:27
Funny, in independent studies as cited by Business Week FIVE years ago (and more safety features have been added since then) results showed you were much much safer in a Honda Civic than ANY truck or SUV. This is backed up by highway fatality rates and insurance statistics.
But don't let the facts rain on your little domestic parade. After all, who needs airbags, safety cells, and the rest when you have good ole "thick" American steel.
8th Jan 2007, 10:56
Ummmmmmmmmmmm. but when a Honda Accord hits a wall, or a fit or civic for that matter, the damage is contained to the front of the car!!! The whole car does not turn into a suitcase like the older Ford and Chevy pickups. The new "Ace" system from Honda should take care of crashes from larger pickup trucks and I here it is very effective for protection from run away trucks and suvs.
8th Jan 2007, 11:49
You all need to relax - virtually all vehicles are assembled from parts from virtually everywhere. Just read the content section of the sticker on a new vehicle.
Drive what you prefer, do you think GM Ford or Chrysler care if their vehicles are assembled in America by Americans???
If they could turn a profit, they'd probably be building them in China for goodness sakes!
8th Jan 2007, 13:54
Yup, prove is in historic statistics. If American steel is what safety is dependent on, why were US fatality deaths so high until safety features (initially things like safety glass and seatbelts) implemented? Oops, there goes another xenophobic theory out the window.
As to the above comment, what's really happening (which maybe you are point to) is that the energy from the impact is designed to disperse AWAY from the occupant area, unless SUVs and trucks which give their "lucky" occupants the full brunt of the force (as you indicate).