15th Nov 2009, 23:53
I LOVE the comedy on this site!!! Keep it coming!!! 80's HONDAS well known for "QUALITY!!!" Maybe if your previous vehicle was a Mo-ped or a Yugo. Our Honda Civic was the most unreliable, poorly built piece of garbage that ever cursed our driveway. It started self-destructing even BEFORE the puny warranty ran out. I can see why Japanese car companies refuse to match domestic warranties!!
16th Nov 2009, 00:00
"A base Ford Mustang cost $7,286 back in 1985.
A base Honda Civic cost $5,399 for the same year."
F.Y.I. The Mustang was a base 1985 4 cylinder. It was purchased for $6300 new in 1985. The Civic was a 1989 and loaded. It was purchased for $11,800. That is "nearly twice as much" by anyone's accounting. In those days we were uninformed about how really unreliable Japanese cars were and honestly didn't know any better than to pay that much. Believe me, we regretted it and learned our lesson. All our Fords since have been perfect. Never a single repair. We will never pay our hard-earned money for anything made by a Japanese company again... EVER.
16th Nov 2009, 05:58
I agree with the 80's Honda comments. Back then I did not need transmissions and hardly any issues. After 2000 I started having issues, yet I kept buying as many before were not the case. Now I will recommend domestics and a decent standard 100000 mile warranty. If I kept my old Legend for example, I would be saying Hondas are perfect, but I buy cars every few years and drive a lot. Basing comments on 15-20 years ago is not today. I saw otherwise. I have had a lot of new ones, not just the one.
16th Nov 2009, 10:01
First of all, who is talking about 20+ years ago? I won't get into the "twice the price" Civic as that has already been covered... C'mon!! Imports that are of the same class of car as the domestics are usually the same or a little less expensive nowadays. The previous comment about the Cobalt is true as if you add options to a domestic the price rises quickly and they don't come with as many standard features in many cases.
If you shop comparable domestics against imports you'll find pretty much equal values in each line. I have shopped both recently and faired better with Honda. Buying a domestic only works to your advantage if it is loaded with rebates and other incentives. That is not an accurate measure of the original MSRP of the car, however.
And why does domestic companies charging more for their cars to cover their higher overhead make ZERO sense to you? It is simple economics.
16th Nov 2009, 15:25
First, from '85 to '89 cars made huge jumps in pricing, so if you're not comparing the same year, you can't really say too much about it.
Second, you are comparing a "loaded" Civic to a "base" Mustang. My loaded Mustang was $13,800 in 1988 and the same car went up to around $14,500 in 1989. No way has a Civic EVER been twice the price of the same year comparably equipped Mustang. Also, what did you load a Civic with in '89 to get to $11,800? I looked at them in '89 and they were around $9,000 to $10,000.
16th Nov 2009, 15:32
Being an automotive mechanic, and not a doctor like you most likely think I was implying, I don't see my job going anywhere anytime soon. Companies won't be able to keep "importing people" forever. Eventually, if no American has a job, then no American will have enough money to buy anything. Your logic is severely flawed.
16th Nov 2009, 15:36
"Apparently, simply because you like the Ridgeline, or Toyota, and want to pretend they make a truck."
I'm not the same person you were speaking to, however, I must add the while the Ridgeline is no truck, Toyota has been making excellent trucks for over 20 years. Toyota trucks far surpass Domestic trucks minus the Severe Duty market. Which I'm sure Toyota could conquer as well if they tried. I've seen many new Chevy's and Ford's sitting on the Toyota lot. And I've seen over a dozen new Tundra's driving around my town in just the past few days. So here where I live anyways, Tundra sales are up.
16th Nov 2009, 15:40
If you were comparing a Mustang and Civic, which is an apples to oranges comparison to begin with, then why would you try to back up your argument by saying that the reason the Mustang was so much cheaper was because the Honda was loaded with all the bells and whistles? This clearly would make the Honda more expensive. Your whole argument is filled with holes. You can't say a Civic is more expensive when you compare a fully loaded Civic to another bare-bones vehicle. OBVIOUSLY the price will be higher for the Civic!
16th Nov 2009, 21:41
I shopped for my last new car in 2007. I ended up with a fully loaded Special Edition Mustang with leather, satellite radio, power everything, special oversized tires and wheels and an automatic.
I looked at the Nissan Altima (a basic compact car). With a manual transmission and ZERO other equipment beyond what came standard the dealer wanted over $5000 MORE for it than my loaded Mustang. So Japanese cars are CHEAPER!!! You have GOT to be kidding!!! You can buy a Mustang GT with 300 horsepower for less than a Camry or Accord.
17th Nov 2009, 03:19
There's no way you paid $11,800 for a 1989 Civic even if it was gold plated. Base price for a 1989 Civic was $6,385. Even the Civic CRX would hardly cost that sum of money, even loaded. And 1985 is not the same as 1989, car prices rose a lot in those days.
17th Nov 2009, 12:14
The Fordpublicans are all over this web site.
It seems that they are out to belittle Hondacrats everywhere!
17th Nov 2009, 14:52
You can import your doctors, but then add malpractice insurance in America. Imports have other considerations like environmental impact, health safety, OSHA lack of health insurance, disability insurance. I have been overseas and prefer America. Low pay and little or no benefits may appeal if you are desperate. I prefer otherwise
17th Nov 2009, 16:03
"You can buy a Mustang GT with 300 horsepower for less than a Camry or Accord."
Yes, after all of those factory incentives Ford has to offer in order to even sell cars.
15th Nov 2009, 16:24
Your criteria for the definition of a truck are "a large vehicle with an open bed on the back for hauling stuff." Now you are changing the criteria? Toyota and Honda do base their "trucks" or "SUV's" on car chassis. I'm not comparing anything. You asked, I answered, and now you change the criteria to support your contention that the Ridgeline is a truck. Apparently, simply because you like the Ridgeline, or Toyota, and want to pretend they make a truck.