GM = bankrupt

[opebo]

Opebo, your ignorance is showing. The Ford Taurus was the most popular and well made cars Ford ever put out.

It is one of the most unreliable mass-market cars ever: http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/ford/taurus/

You'll find that while some people had good luck, a huge percentage of the reviews on there are very negative, while if you click over to the reviews of, for example, the Buick Lesabre or Century, or other equivalent GM cars, the percentage of positive reviews is far, far higher.

Taurus not only had the bad 3.8 lietre v6, it had lots of terrible transmissions and various smaller problems, including electrical.  But it all comes down to transmissions - a big expense.

[opebo]

carsurvey is not a legitimate source for data regarding the reliability of a car.  It's a voluntary thing so only particular people are going to leave comments, it's incredibly limited, and based on the opinions of those will little to no car knowledge.

And yet the results are precisely what you would get if you surveyed local mechanics.  There is no 'legitimate' source for data regarding the reliability of a car, but word-of-mouth, and anecdotal experience is far more useful and accurate than anything you're going to get from something like consumer reports.

[dead0man]

and anecdotal experience is far more useful and accurate than anything you're going to get from something like consumer reports.

Now that is comedy gold.

[opebo]

and anecdotal experience is far more useful and accurate than anything you're going to get from something like consumer reports.

Now that is comedy gold.

Think about it, deadman.  Consumer reports measures things like the 'initial quality' of a vehicle - for example the 'fit and finish'.  These things are of basically no consequence in the real world.  Who cares how closely your body panels fit together as longas they stay on for 30 years?

Even if a 'consumer reports' type of agency or publication were to go back and study the 'reliability' of cars 10-20 years old, they are unlikely to form as useful a body of knowledge as that found on carsurvey.com and the like.  For one thing they tend to look at the wrong things - they may say, well, your Chevrolet broke more times than that guy's Ford, thus the Ford is better.  However, in practice, as perceived by the owners, the Chevrolet may be much loved and the Ford much despised simply because the more numerous repairs on the Chevy were very low cost, while the few repairs on the Ford were always the transmission going out or the heads exploding (this by the way is a pretty accurate assessment).   Another key factor is - did the needed repair leave the driver stranded - because non-stranding malfunctions are not going to bother people nearly as much.  Stranding infuriates us all.

These reports also tend to value driving characteristics that aren't in fact of any importance to most drivers in the real world, such as handling, and underate such characteristics that are in fact absolutely vital over the long haul, such as softness of ride or lack of vibrations during excelleration.  In general most evaluatoins of the consumer reports type heavily overweight characteristics that foreign cars do better and underweight what american cars do (did) well.  Why do you think people kept buying Buicks and Chevrolets for decades even when people like those on this forum thought they were 'all junk' - the reason was that they liked them.  They liked smoothness, quiet, torque, simplicity, quiet, and room, and couldn't care one whit about handling or fit and finish. 

The point being that any attempt to be scientific about this information inherently is prone to error because one must make assumptions, which always warps the information in trying to study it, while, taken in total, the owners impressions are, on average, going to be correct.  If 70% of owners loved their old Buick, and 60 percent of Ford owners hated their Taurus, you'll find that your chances are a lot better with an old Lesabre.

[dead0man]

Have you ever even read a Consumer Reports......anything?  Do you have any idea what data they use or how they get it?  Your post makes me thinks you haven't and don't.


The part where you claimed CR "tend to value" handling and what not realy threw me for a laugh.

[opebo]

Have you ever even read a Consumer Reports......anything?  Do you have any idea what data they use or how they get it?  Your post makes me thinks you haven't and don't.


The part where you claimed CR "tend to value" handling and what not realy threw me for a laugh.

Why is that?  Are you saying they make no value judgements?

[opebo]

Ok, so I took a look at 'Consumer Reports' (admittedly I hadn't seen it in years), and here's what they consider good used car values'

Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Small cars/wagons
2004 Honda Civic Hybrid Sdn Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $20,650 $8,375 59%
2005 Subaru Impreza WRX Wgn Auto AWD 4 Cyl Turbo 4doors 51,000 25,545 12,200 52
2006 Toyota Matrix XRS Hbk Man FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 40,000 19,250 11,700 39
2007 Toyota Corolla CE Sdn Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 33,000 15,105 10,100 33
2008 Mazda Mazda3 Mazdaspeed3 Hbk Man FWD 4 Cyl Turbo 4doors 20,000 22,440 18,050 20
 
SUVs
2004 Hyundai Santa Fe Base Utility Auto FWD 4 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $18,799 $6,425 66%
2005 Toyota Sequoia Ltd Utility Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 51,000 41,605 17,250 59
2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca Base Utility Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 32,395 15,250 53
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander ES Utility Auto RWD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 21,370 10,325 52
2008 Honda Pilot VP Utility Auto 2WD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 27,595 17,600 36
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Family cars
2004 Toyota Avalon XLS Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $30,605 $10,875 64%
2005 Honda Accord Hybrid Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 51,000 30,140 13,625 55
2006 Nissan Altima SE-R Sdn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 29,650 15,600 47
2007 Mercury Milan Base Sdn Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 23,670 12,675 46
2008 Ford Fusion SE Sdn Auto AWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 23,660 14,500 39
 
Luxury/Upscale cars
2004 Acura 3.5RL Sdn w/Nav Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $45,600 $11,375 75%
2005 Lexus GS 430 Sdn Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 51,000 47,975 17,175 64
2006 Lincoln Town Car Signature Ltd Sdn Auto RWD 8 Cyl 4doors 40,000 44,920 16,400 63
2007 Volvo S60 Base Sdn Auto FWD 5 Cyl Turbo light pressure 4doors 33,000 30,885 15,800 49
2008 Infiniti M35 Sdn Auto RWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 43,050 25,450 41
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Minivans
2004 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 66,000 $24,490 $9,275 62%
2005 Toyota Sienna CE Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 5doors 51,000 23,425 10,275 56
2006 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 25,345 12,925 49
2007 Toyota Sienna LE Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 5doors 33,000 25,830 14,725 43
2008 Honda Odyssey LX Wgn Auto FWD 6 Cyl 4doors 20,000 25,860 17,725 31
 
Sporty cars
2004 BMW Z4 Rdstr 2.5 Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 66,000 $33,600 $13,250 61%
2005 Nissan 350Z Track Cpe Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 51,000 34,600 14,750 57
2006 Honda S2000 Convt Man RWD 4 Cyl 2doors 40,000 34,050 18,125 47
2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata Convt Man RWD 4 Cyl 2doors 33,000 23,390 13,800 41
2008 Porsche Boxster Base Rdstr Man RWD 6 Cyl 2doors 20,000 45,800 35,900 22
 
Vehicle Mileage MSRP When New Buying From Dealer Price Drop In Retail Value vs. MSRP (%)
Pickup trucks
2004 Toyota Tundra SR5 Access Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 2doors 66,000 $25,395 $11,050 56%
2005 Subaru Baja Sport Utility Auto AWD 4 Cyl 4doors 51,000 23,145 15,550 33
2006 Honda Ridgeline RT Crew Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 4doors 40,000 27,700 14,925 46
2007 Honda Ridgeline RT Crew Cab Auto 4WD 6 Cyl 4doors 33,000 27,800 16,050 42
2008 Toyota Tundra Base Reg Cab Auto 4WD 8 Cyl 2doors 20,000 27,540 17,550 36

Obviously you'ld be crazy to take advice from these people.  Of course there are a few decent cars in the list (Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Corolla), the list includes Nissans, Hondas, and for gosh sakes Volvos!  Subarus even.  Its just silly.  The Honda minivan? Ford Fusion?  I suppose, in fairness, most cars of the last 5 years or so are horrible, but still..

[dead0man]

There really is no need to keep reiterating that you know nothing about cars, your point has been very well made by this point.

Have you ever even read a Consumer Reports......anything?  Do you have any idea what data they use or how they get it?  Your post makes me thinks you haven't and don't.


The part where you claimed CR "tend to value" handling and what not realy threw me for a laugh.

Why is that?  Are you saying they make no value judgements?

On their "reviews" of new cars?  Sure.  And?  The part that is valuable about CR and cars is the "repair history" part.  You know the part where the millions of CR readers fill out surveys and questionairs about the various things they own, going back 6 or 7 years on cars (roughly the length of time most people keep a car).

I've always found their reviews of new cars a little laughable, but those reviews aren't aimed at me.  They are aimed at my dad and people like you.

[dead0man]

Unscientific, but still thread appropriate link. Ten cars that seem to last forever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

Unscientific, but still thread appropriate link. Ten cars that seem to last forever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Saabs are atrociously unreliable money sinks.  Volvos a little better but not much.  Newer SUbarus are no good, though obviously some of the very old ones (seventies and early eighties) weren't bad.  Still, they were much worse than a Toyota or Datsun of the same era.

There really is no need to keep reiterating that you know nothing about cars, your point has been very well made by this point.

No, deadman, you merely espouse the conventional wisdom - Japanese and European cars good, American cars bad.   It is rather obvious that I know much more in detail about automobiles than you, but I would never be so offensive as to characterize you as a know-nothing.  You just know very little and tend to accept what you read in the media a bit too redily.  Its ok, you can afford to waste money on the wrong cars - no problem.

[dead0man]

And you know your anti-conventional wisdom is correct because of all your years getting your fingers greasy?  All the years studying automotive theory at Uni?

[opebo]

And you know your anti-conventional wisdom is correct because of all your years getting your fingers greasy?  All the years studying automotive theory at Uni?

I'm a cheap bastard from a long line of cheap bastards.  I come from the kind of family that recieves $200,000/year in income and considers any car over $5,000 'expensive'.

[dead0man]

Thank you.  I rest my case.

[pbrower2a]

Best engine, ever:

Beautiful.  3 moving parts.  THREE.  Smooth.  Sure it's weak at low RPM and it drinks gas like frat boy drinks beer, but get it above 5 grand and she'll sing.  They don't weigh anything compared to how much power they put out.  But they aint for everybody.

As an old memory I recall that one consumer reporting company put a huge number of used Mazda vehicles -- almost all rotary-engine models -- on their execration list for poor performance and bad repair history while giving good reviews to Mazda vehicles with conventional engines. The RX model of the time (a simulated sports car) seemed to have  worked out the bugs), but all in all the rotary engine was a failure. It looked like a great idea, but something was terribly wrong. At the time it was praising about every contemporary Japanese-made car.   

[dead0man]

Like I said, they have NO balls at low rpm and they get sh**tty mpg.  The early rotaries had some longevity issues because of the some seals (Apex) on the rotor kept wearing out requiring a rebuild.  They had that fixed by 1979 and rebuilds on a rotary are very easy compared to a piston engine anyway.  THREE MOVING PARTS!  For the entire engine!  Even a 4cyl. piston has, at a minimum, close to 20.

The reason it (mostly) died was the fuel consumption issue and lack of power at low RPM (and emissions issues to a slightly lesser extent...some unburned gas makes it through the ignition process....which is one of the reasons for the sh**tty milage....but under the right conditions you can make fire shoot out your muffler....fun fun fun...sort of).  It's a great motor for a sports car (not a simulated one, a real one...rear wheel drive, just 2 seats and handles well, that's what sports car means) as they can spin to a higher RPM and they got gobs of power when they are up there AND they can stay up there all day at the track.  The engine weighs very little compared to similarly power piston engines.  1.2 or 1.3L (~80 cubic inches for you gear heads) is a very little engine...especially if you're getting 270 hp out of it.  Mazda still uses it in the RX7 (Japan and the Aussies) and the RX8.  Clearly not an engine for everybody, but it still has it's uses and advantages.


disclaimer:I've owned 3 RX7s...and honestly, none of them have been particularly dependable....but that's not why I owned them.  I like dependability and efficiency, but I love "fun to drive"...that's why my next car will be a Miata.

[opebo]

Deadman, the best engine for normal passenger car use, as an engine and aside from other issues, is an inline six cylinder:

[dead0man]

Only if it's in a "boxer" configuration like all good hearted inline 6s.  (Subarus and Porsches)

[Joe Republic]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ronnie]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only a born loser would say something like that.  Even if he knew nothing about cars, he didn't have to project it to the world.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Deadman, the best engine for normal passenger car use, as an engine and aside from other issues, is an inline six cylinder:

My old Dodge Dart had an inline six!  Dang thing as an absolute TANK!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Deadman, the best engine for normal passenger car use, as an engine and aside from other issues, is an inline six cylinder:

My old Dodge Dart had an inline six!  Dang thing as an absolute TANK!

An accidental tank, but still quite reliable.  Chrysler had originally intended to make the slant-6 engine for the Valiant/Dart out of aluminum to save weight but ran into engineering problems with mass production so they reverted to their fall back position of using cast iron, which gave them a heavier but tougher engine.  Had they managed to build it out of aluminum they'd hae gotten better performance at the cost of reduced reliability.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ur right it was a slant six

[opebo]

Only if it's in a "boxer" configuration like all good hearted inline 6s.  (Subarus and Porsches)

No, no, those aren't 'inline'.  Inline is the configuration where all the cylinders are in a line.  Then you also have Vee and boxer configurations.  The inline six is superior to the boxer or V, though the V has considerable advantages in compactness.

The advantage to the six in-line is its imperturbable smoothness - it is naturally 'in balance', and thus smooth and quiet.

And yes, jmfcst, your slant six is a great example of these - 'slant' just means its an inline six tipped over a bit.

And regarding aluminum earnest - one of the worst innovations in automotive history.  Cast iron is the durable material for engines and heads.

[dead0man]

Only if it's in a "boxer" configuration like all good hearted inline 6s.  (Subarus and Porsches)

No, no, those aren't 'inline'.  Inline is the configuration where all the cylinders are in a line.  Then you also have Vee and boxer configurations.  The inline six is superior to the boxer or V

<snip>

And yes, jmfcst, your slant six is a great example of these - 'slant' just means its an inline six tipped over a bit.

...and "boxer" just means its an inline six (or four) tipped all the way over.

[opebo]

...and "boxer" just means its an inline six (or four) tipped all the way over.

Not so, a Boxer six would be one in which there are three cylinders on each size, 'opposed' as it were.  And a Boxer Four would have two on each side.  These are great engines for certain purposes (basically rear engined sporty cars), don't get me wrong, but they are much rougher-running than an inline six or even a V-8.
Boxers:




Inline six: