I had a Volvo (in Europe, so not an expensive import, but 'domestic') and it cost me a fortune. It was so boring I could feel it sucking at my soul when I got in it, and the engine timing could only be set by Volvo using specialist tools. There is something wrong in the car industry that regulation is not addressing, imo.
Yeah, I was surprised about that as well. Minis (post BMW acquisition) are always in the "fun to drive/expensive to maintain" as described by car mags. It was my understanding (when I purchased my 2012) that all maintenance was included in the purchase price (through 36k miles).
I purchased the "extended maintenance plan" (increasing all scheduled maintenance from 36k to 60k) on my 2012 for $2500 and have only paid an additional couple hundred in maintenance since then.
I'm not counting tires - which I have spent quite a bundle on due to having both summer and winter tires and wheels for my vehicle.
You can get quite a bit of power out of an FC for its weight :)
You can get above 500 horsepower on that light little car easier and cheaper than any other platform I can think of. Considering you're starting around 186 (Turbo S4?) that's pretty great...and the car will be ~2500 lbs with you in it?
You have to put a big turbo, 3mm seals, and suffer turbo lag, etc. almost any car can get a lot of power with a turbo but N/A power is the place for me.
I'm rebuilding my S2000 right now turning it into a 2.4L stroker for 300+ hp. :D
Yes I did look for Alfa in the list, I wasn't surprised it wasn't there, as in my experience it'd be so far off the top of the chart, the others would look tiny in comparison.
I loved our Alfa, but my word was it expensive to maintain (and broke a LOT).
Jaguar owners don't care about maintenance costs, anecdotally speaking, of course. Executive VP at an old job had a Jaguar (XJ-12 I think) that would occasionally catch fire and 'need some work'. I swear it spent more time in the shop than on the road, but he loved Jags.
Loved mine as well ('86 Quad Spider) but mine was very easy on maintenance. Owned it about 20 years, daily drove it (year-round in Boston area) for about 10 of those, and in 135K miles, it left me stranded once when a Bosch distributor broke internally. Brakes and maintenance parts were very reasonably priced, readily available, and the car was easy to maintain except for some engine bay clearance issues [when changing motor mounts and the like] due to the bodywork shape.
Sorry for being (slightly?) off topic but you've prompted my curiosity now;
Owner of a mazda 6 (almost 2 years), no repairs needed thus far, when I got it it had been top rated in consumer reports; is there something I should be looking out for? (brief googling didn't turn up anything; to the child and others since I'm limited by response rate, my curiosity was peaked by the high cost I saw in the article, but I haven't heard what might cause that high cost)
I had a horrifying experience with mine, a 2002 model. There were issues ever so often, but what took the cake was that, 6 years in, it started to burn oil, as, from full to low on oil in 100 miles. The car's diagnostics saw nothing wrong, so even knowing what to fix would have involved opening the engine up, and that's a lot of labor. Then you might end up with a costly part replacement on top. The actual recommendation from the mechanic, given that the car was still relatively new, was to fill the oil up and trading it in to a dealer without disclosing the problem, that there's no way they'd find anything wrong with it in any pre-purchase inspection!
I really wanted to buy a Mazda, they're cheap, reliable, safe, and have nice features. But they literally don't sell one which has enough driver's legroom and headroom for tall people...
For example the Mazda6 has great legroom but bad headroom. The CX-5 has great headroom but bad legroom. The CX-3 has bad both.
If you need a vehicle with good headroom AND legroom you're almost required to buy a Subaru (Forester, Legacy, or Outback), Prius V, Toyota RAV4, or Nissan Rogue. It is pathetic how limited the choice is.
PS - You can see roominess metrics on Edmunds[0], just scroll down to interior measurements.
Ford Flex should be in that list. Or the Transit (Connect), even if it's an oddball choice.
I agree though. Luckily Toyotas and Subarus are a solid buy...well, with the subbies as long as you have no intention of modifying anything underhood (I swear that brand is the king of engine rebuilds).
The Ford Flex isn't available. They ran out of 2015 models and haven't got 2016s off of the production line yet. Great vehicle, but only when it exists. Not kidding, go the Ford Flex page and hit "search dealer inventory," put in your zip, and hit search. 0 results.
The Transit Connect isn't appropriate for consumers, it hasn't passed any of IIHS's tests, has no safety ratings at all, and is considered a commercial vehicle. I'm not putting my kids into something with no safety data on it.
But, yes, the list isn't exhaustive. I just wanted to make the point that Mazda in particular has slim pickings for tall drivers with long legs.
Well I am going to have to say pure electrics might fare better but we will need ten years of playing with the tech to know for sure. All the electronics are going to be fun. Almost all the unusual entries are engine related.
Before anyone runs off in celebration of pure EVs just note the number of vehicles being sampled. Issue arise from defects for sure, as they do for wear and tear. However a lot of issues on older cars are because of lack of care. One of the reasons manufactures like BMW include service for 4x50 is so that even the leased cars would get serviced.
There are a few exaggerated entries on the list, one I know of is the Nissan Murano. Its listed quite high but that might have been because of the CVT issues faced in 05-07 that were remedied with Nissan extending the warranties.
I'd also be afraid of the "theoretically more reliable pure electrics" suffering from premature failures due to poor implementation, as has happened recently in other markets.
Compact fluorescents should last ~6x longer than incandescents, yet since the commoditization of them, you'll find the circuits in the cheaper ones often fail long before the fluorescent tube itself would have failed (I recently did a teardown of about 20 of my own failed CFL's. About 2/3 had functioning tubes with blown circuits).
I similarly lament seeing an LED traffic light or LED vehicle tail light on the fritz, knowing that the individual LED's themselves probably had another 20 years of life left in them, yet met their fate early due to a bad solder joint or blown mosfet, etc...
The fun (additional) electronics on EVs are pretty standard stuff. Charger, inverter (do all EVs use AC induction motors? I think so), battery charge controller. They can be made very reliable and, at least for the popular EVs, they are indeed. I'd be worried about driving an EV created by some unknown chinese brand though.
Your answer doesn't help understanding how the article finds the average BMW maintenance cost to be higher than that of the BMW model with the highest maintenance cost. Unless brand costs are not calculated as a mean but something else very different, which is not explained.
Don't have the labor costs for a valve cover gasket, but they could be sizable. Scrolling down on repairpal web page above, apparently they can cost up to $1000?
No wonder BMW 328i is in the higher range for maint. costs!
My Yamaha R6 ($12k CAD brand new) was backed into by a car and the damage was mostly cosmetic but the parts and labour to fix it all still ended up at $9k.
The problem is that paying for parts and parts replacement piece by piece is significantly more expensive than buying a new bike (or a car) as a whole.
Anecdotal evidence - my sister had a 1st generation SRX sport-utility, and for whatever reason, Cadillac decided to put different tire widths on the front & rear wheels, with directional tread. This means you can't rotate the tires. It's also an all-wheel-drive model. So if you have an alignment issue that causes tire wear, or a puncture that can't be repaired, you can't just buy one tire -- you have to buy a full set of four at $200 (front) and $250 (rear) each.
Repair costs like that adds up quickly. Like the $1200 3rd row seat motor that died. She started calling it the thousand-dollar-car, since any repairs were around that price.
To what benefit on their part? They don't manufacture tires, so they don't profit if you have to replace them more often.
As another commenter pointed out, this is quite common on performance and luxury vehicles because it has handling advantages. If you're buying a luxury car, you're by definition choosing to pay more than is absolutely necessary for (what you consider to be) a better experience. The tires are part of that. You can argue that the line should be drawn elsewhere, but it's not arbitrary, and it's very much in line with the market segment they're going after.
Luxury vehicles (of which Cadillac is) I'll give you.
Performance vehicles I disagree. Handling choices are up to the mechanic/driver and you want to give them options but also make their maintenance choices simple. You should have a wide range of tire options on a performance car.
It's a SUV. They get used to tow boats, take science-fair projects to school, and take the family on vacations. They aren't used for track days at Road Atlanta.
This is incredibly common among high-end luxury cars. The better handling that results from staggered wheel sizes is considered a luxury. The owner is assumed to be willing to shoulder a higher maintenance cost burden in return for a superior driving experience.
None of what you describe is unique to Cadillac -- this is what it is to own a luxury automobile. If it is not worth the price, don't buy one.
The Lexus SUVs that they have owned didn't do this. The tires for them were an odd size and usually had to be ordered, but all four wheels had the same size tire -- with standard (non-directional) tread. They still faced the "must replace all four" issue because of the full-time 4WD system, but at least they could be rotated to get full life out of them.
Which may be one reason why Lexus unexpectedly has a good total cost of ownership.
BTW, the Lexii had far fewer squeaks and rattles after 6 years than the Cadillac did, and had a much quieter ride overall.
Alright, I assumed Porsche 911 to be entry level - for that both Ferrari and Lamborghini have similarly specced models. If you meant Boxster or even Cayman then maybe not.
Why not? It's a very pleasant drive up to ~150mph, beyond that it becomes a bit unstable in turns. Lamborghini is shaking up to 150mph and then it goes smooth as a butter (I drove over 190mph in turns on Autobahn at 2am, fantastic). 911 and Corvette C6 would be my first choices for a 1st sport car as they feel pretty nice and you don't kill yourself by a bad downshift.
I guess this is a mental failing for me here. When I think 911, I still think of the cars as they were before AWD and traction control. To me, that's when they were the most fun to drive and had fairly homicidal tendencies. That's my ideal 911.
I don't really think of the new ones because they're almost boringly pedestrian to me. Not that anyone should need to drive a dangerous car to have fun -- you don't. I just find the last decade or so (or two even?) of the 911's history to be mostly devoid of character over its competitors.
Edit: Moreover, I don't want any car to be "pleasant" to drive at high speed. That sounds just way too relaxed for that level of speed. It should be pleasant at much lower speeds, absolutely, but honestly anything above 70mph and especially 90mph should require 100% engagement. That doesn't necessitate being difficult, but still not something I want to describe as pleasant. Your grandparents could probably comfortably drive the new GT-R at 130mph in pouring rain. That should absolutely not be encouraged. I've driven at that speed in bad weather and it requires me to be hyper-alert.
Ahh, the ones that were oversteering unexpectedly ;-) Yes, 911 nowadays is different, as you said pedestrian. For old-skool oversteering and difficult driving you have Porsche Carrera GT now ;-) 911 is IMO much easier to drive than most US muscle cars. Lambo with its changing aerodynamics and stiff suspension literally feels like butter at very high speeds and is a terrible shaker when driving slow.
Here in Germany a Hausfrau returning from shopping drives 120mph+ easily so people here are used to a higher default speed level than in the US where you are allowed 65mph. Often when overtaking on Autobahns you drive 130mph and some nervous Porsche/AMG etc. drivers blink at you to leave the fast lane so that they can pass.
It's not even so much about higher default level of speed to me. I'm used to driving quite fast.
I'm worried about physics. ΔV will kill you.
I try as much as possible to eliminate the compounding effects of things-gone-wrong. ΔV is a multiplier in an accident.
Edit/Aside: The ultimate oversteering screaming death car is the Omni GLHS. Man is that thing a hoot. But yeah, even if you don't hit them, I think that you should be able to see where the limits of a car may lie. I don't get that sense driving some of the modern "accessible" sportscars and that feeling actually makes me more nervous to drive them.
911's start in the low $100k range. "On paper" the Ferrari 488 is ~$250k, the Lamborghini Hurrican is ~$210k, and the McLaren 570 is ~$190k. You can easily drive a 911 home for close to that $100k price. You probably cannot drive a 488, Hurrican, or 570 home for less than $250-$275k. Maintenance is similarly expensive.
I agree that the Boxster/Cayman are more aligned with "entry level sports cars".
Your mechanic doesn't do much work Porsches. I have used them a lot in the past when I had a Saab (which is ultimately gm/American technology), but now that I have a decade old Mercedes and a decade old Porsche (I prefer maintenance over deprecation). Once a your mechanic contractor called me after the meeting was scheduled to start and told me that they couldn't service the car because they had no experience, diagnostic tools or spare parts for my car, and other interactions with them weren't better. Another time, their suggested 'OEM' quality parts really werent.
Another factor might also be that many high end imports are services at the dealer/speciality shops and the service interactions with your mechanic are for cars that have less than stellar maintenance-- which skews the picture significantly.
I have daily driver Porsche under warranty. I don't have hard numbers but it's been very reasonable. I had two certified pre-owned BMWs and never paid a cent for their entire lifetime. Porsche has cost me for tires but was brand new and under warranty. Fuel pump failed, replaced under warranty. I drive it everyday. It's brilliant. German engineering is great. Thinking S class Mercedes next. Is this helpful? or just bragging? haha :-)
Don't know about the current S class but the previous models were plagued with electronic issues. Source: father owned one and extended family owned every single one of them.
They also show Lexus as third cheapest to maintain on the chart. Stopped reading at this line and came to HN comments to see if I was missing something. Very confusing.
I also noticed that and came to HN looking for comments. Interestingly, here in Cambodia there are so many Lexus SUVs you wouldn't believe it. Phnom Penh has surprisingly expensive cars all over (usually I see a few Ferraris or Bentleys every week), but Lexus is king. I wonder if this is part of Lexus's business strategy? Do they advertise their cheap maintenance cost, or are Lexus drivers generally aware of it?
>In order to estimate annual maintenance costs, we found the amount spent on every two oil changes (as oil changes are generally done every six months).
This cost only considers oil changes? That is not a realistic cost of total maintenance over 10 years.
I think most US consumers with newer cars typically only get maintenance done when they do their oil changes. Usually other services get tacked on the same bill. If they're just going by total receipt, this is probably fine.
It's not written well, but I imagine they are getting the cost of all work completed when an oil change is completed. Typically owners will get scheduled maintenance done at the same time they get an oil change done. 1 appointment instead of 2.
No, that makes no sense because you wouldn't see that kind of variance in the prices.
I think in your quote they're saying they're using oil changes as a unit of time. This is because oil changes are usually done on a regular cycles, and because when you get your oil changed you often get your other maintenance done.
Anecdata: Just over 250,000 on my 2007 Honda CRV and with $1k in unscheduled mechanical maintenance and around another $1k in non-mechanical maintenance.
Assuming a 10,000 mile oil change cycle (I only change the oil when the car recommends it, and it seems to avg about 10k miles) that's 25 oil changes so far, for a total of ~$1800 (assuming dealer oil change + full synthetic, which has been all but two of my oil changes so far; does not include tax).
Warning, opinions ahead: In my experience, most people do not follow the recommended preventative maintenance plans for their vehicles, and rely solely on oil, tires, and gas changes, and all three only when necessary.
Here be dragons: At an over-all average MPG (according to the car's own computer) of 25, I've spent more on fuel than the cost of the vehicle, including loan interest, in the 250,000 miles.
Getting waaaaay out there: 32k for car + interest, 35k in fuel, 10k in other scheduled work (I believe in preventative maintenance), upgrades, cleaning, etc for a total cost of ownership of about ~80k means I've paid ~$3/mile driven.
Don't forget annual battery checks. Mandatory for warranty.
Your logic is not too far off actually. Our cars have no spark plugs(and cables), radiators, starter motors killing the 12v battery, gas pumps, fuel lines, fuel filters, oil, etc. So much less to worry about.
Heck, even the brake pads should last longer, due to the regenerative braking.
So barring any unforeseen events (such as something like the inverter or the internal charging burning out, which I haven't seen in the Leaf forums), the maintenance costs should be pretty low indeed. These things you mention are pretty cheap.
Honestly, they should depreciate way less than they currently do. Those things are incredibly reliable, and the current battery chemistry is way better than the first model, even if it is not thermally managed.
I'm curious to see how Tesla will compare to these after they have been out for a while. I heard they are cheap to maintain, I hope that turns out to be true.
In theory, because they have less parts that need maintenance they could be. Right now, from what I've read, the biggest problem with Tesla's vehicles is that so few places can maintain them.
That may change when Tesla's 30K-ish vehicle launches.
My last Jeep Wrangler tires cost $1300. Granted, they are a bit larger than stock, and I had to buy 5, but $1500 isn't grossly out of line for quality tires.
This is one reason why I don't buy American. I actually really like Ford's vehicles (the infotainment system might be the best available) but they consistently get bad reliability scores along with other American brands (Chrysler, Dodge, etc).
Why don't American manufacturers work to improve their reliability? People really are buying Toyota/Honda/Mazda for that reason. And while Kia might be unreliable as all heck, they come with the best included warranty available[0].
American vehicles actually cost more too in many cases, so you're paying for the "privilege" of getting a less reliable vehicle.
Ford has improved their reliability considerably, post-bailout. Ford is really the only example I can see of the bailout doing anything good.
Pre-bailout, Ford was pretty abysmal. I would actually say they were less reliable than GM. They took the influx of cash and overhauled their entire manufacturing AND design processes to turn out some great cars. The only thing in their lineup looking bleak to me is the Escape (ugh, just no).
The problem is that they're still pretty cheap on their interiors and panels tend to come loose and break a lot. American consumers tend to value interior over most other car features unfortunately. Modern Fords, save for the Escape, are pretty reliable and Honda has shown themselves to be much less so in recent years. Mazda is still too small volume to matter.
tl;dr: Ford is great now, Toyota is still on top, Honda is majorly slipping and GM still blows goats.
Yes it was. Ford got $5.9 billion in TALF money. Nissan got some too. Just because it wasn't TARP doesn't mean that it wasn't a bailout. They also got a $9 billion line of credit from the government.
Clever PR misdirection on their part.
They were also lucky in their timing - they had already mortgaged about $18 billion in assets in 2006. Neither one of those events on their own would have been enough to save the company. Both turned them into a major competitor again.
We should have at least let GM burn in a fiery ball of death. Chrystler I'm a little less positive on as I generally approve of the Fiat deal and what the company has done since...some of it anyway.
The Ford lobbyists are a principle-agent problem on many levels, but of course all of corporate America is.
When a supplier loses two customers while all its other customers order more parts than before, there might be some costs associated with adjusting to the new circumstances, but it won't go out of business.
Ford took a loan. Ford got an interest rate that a normal citizen couldn't get, clearly there was special treatment. But it's not like we handed them 9 billion dollars. It seemed like banks were freaking out in 2009, and really wouldn't give a loan at any interest rate. Assuming a sane banking structure, where it was possible to get a loan, 1% on 5.6 billion is around 50 million a year.
"bailout" is a fairly fuzzy term. If the banking system was working, there would have been no need for DOE loans. There was also the benefit of improved milage, thereby reducing carbon emissions. This seems like the sort of thing the DOE does anyway, and wouldn't raise eyebrows in a sane banking environment. I think by your meaning of "bailout" student loans are also a bailout.
On the other hand, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They sold secured assets to new GM and new Chrysler and, i believe, gave investors quite a haircut.
So with the bailouts, they took the haircut right away and baked the risk into the deal they made with the auto manufacturers. Then they ate the risk in their transaction right away and wrote down the loss.
With the loans they made to Ford they used a different tactic -- they said to hell with the financial risk (which you usually bake into your interest rate) and made the loans anyway and left open the possibility of devastating financial losses. The only reason we're looking at this positively is because Ford was a success story. Had Ford folded, congressional heads would have rolled and we'd be cursing the TALF loans and praising the TARP bailouts.
Just to clarify that the whole banking system was locked up and there was no capital. In a normal market GM and Chrysler could have done what Ford did.
Ford was in better shape than the others because they had mortgaged everything before the financial system locked up. That means they also started improving everything sooner.
From my perspective in Michigan the auto bailout was a huge success. My friends in the industry report that most of the cruft in the big three was cut or let go and they really shifted the culture. The whole industry is focused on technology. The suppliers survived. Hundreds of thousands of jobs exist because of the injection of liquidity.
I similarly think that the bailout was a success. I just think that people have a horribly myopic perspective when they act like Ford didn't receive government/taxpayer benefits during the financial crisis.
Fisker and VPG were clearly failures, Tesla and Nissan seemed to work out ok though. You're clearly much more well versed in this situation than i am. It looks to me like a subsidize what you want and tax what you don't style economic policy, just like corn in Iowa. or FHA loans.
But i think we agree (since you changed your terms) it's not exactly a "bailout", but the timing sure was super handy for ford.
I think you're confusing the energy efficiency loans with the TALF money. TALF was the Treasury, intended to prop up the industry, and is arguably a bailout; the energy efficiency loan was the DoE thing and was predicated on development of certain models of electric/fuel efficient cars.
I'll say this, there is a delay between a manufacturer improving and it actually showing up in reliability metrics. So perhaps Ford have improved, but their stats are being ruined by cars made in the early 2000s.
But that being said, the only useful data for reliability is after the first three years since very few vehicles have issues when they're "brand new." It is more in the long tail that they become expensive to keep on the road.
Next time I buy a vehicle I'll re-examine the reliability data and see if the picture has shifted.
4-5 year old MB's are pretty reasonably priced (I tend to buy a little farther out on the price curve than that).
Mercedes also had a horrible rust problem with their mid-late 90s cars. They switched to an environmentally friendly paint process that was terrible for paint adhesion and rust prevention. I have a perfectly good '98 E300D that's going to go the junkyard because of rust issues. Explain to me how that's saving the environment again?
By rusting away, the car will turn into iron oxide, which is "natural" and thus helps the environment. They should have made the paint an energy source for microorganisms, then they could claim to have a biodegradable car.
My relatives have no problems with Toyota cars since ~2009, unlike previous Big 3 vehicles with a continual trickle of issues, even in brand-new vehicles. Plus they're just nicer on the inside and hold up longer.
I've been in a climate known for being hard on vehicles (Minnesota) for ten years and the only rust buckets I ever see on the roads are older American vehicles (Dodge SUV's and minivans in particular). I've owned Nissan and Honda vehicles in that time and never had issues with rust.
I've heard a lot of complaining about Honda lately which bugs me. I actually purchased a Honda motorcycle[0] because of tens of industry reviews lauding the quality and reliability and avoided a Harley at least in part because of the "It's a Harley. Sometimes they stall."[1] (that, and I'm a twig of a man so I'd look ridiculous on a Harley).
[0] Specifically, I purchased a model they'd brought over from Europe (good sized engine, sport/touring, 100+ miles to the gallon but "you don't buy a bike to save on gas") and the reviews for the European model were universally good.
[1] This was an actual quote from the guy at the Harley dealership after he succeeded in starting a floor model only to have it crap out after 5 seconds of idling. He thought I'd be impressed with how loud the damn thing was. Little did he know I wasn't looking to be that guy, I just always wanted a motorcycle and the bike I purchased is exceptionally quiet.
Yep. My 2009 Shadow isn't gonna win any awards in either handling or speed or even "coolest sounding exhaust rumble" but the damn thing is near bulletproof. Shaft drive is a little heavier but removes the need for chain/belt maintenance. It's been knocked over by teenage vandals and still started right back up with no issues. It was my first "proper" bike (after screwing around town on 50cc scooters) and it probably won't be my last but it's been a workhorse, no doubt.
A lot of it depends on the model and "generation". For example, the 2002-2007 (7th gen??) Honda Accords had bum transmissions that pretty much crapped the bed when hooked up to the V6. The I4 versions were really solid.
It's less about general dependability and more about a few slip ups that Honda made that are making people question the brand as a whole.
I saw an unofficial automobile brand slogans meme at some point. The ones I remember were "Toyota: for people who love white kitchen appliances" & "Honda: resting on our laurels."
I had a 2000 Acura Integra that I bought used (the model is essentially a gussied up Civic) that I loved and drove for 10 years. Loved that car. Comfy reliable etc.
I bought a 2007 Honda Civic Ex because we needed 2 cars. Its a nice car, but Honda reliability has definitely fallen (though it is still miles ahead of European and US cars).
The new Honda Civic looks really good and seems reliable so my next car might be a Honda Civic (the 2007 is going strong and we drive so little I hope it lasts another 10 - 15 years). But there was a point between 2009 and 2014 when I felt Honda had lost its way with the god awful cheap iteration of the Honda Civic. It was essentially a money grab based on their reputation.
The worst car I ever owned was a 1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse. I used to joke that friends don't let friends by Mitsubishi
Honda motorcycles have exceptional reliability but I'm not sure that is directly comparable with their auto line. Out of curiosity what model is getting 100+ miles to the gallon?!?
I should have clarified, I am reliably getting over 100MPG, but the motorcycle lists, I think, 50 or 60 MPG (still not bad). I generally use the bike only to ride up north and back and shortly after buying it I bumped the info button and noticed it had a MPG display. It was stuck at 99, which is the max it can display. I assumed it was broken but after several trips I realized they're a little over 100 miles each way and I was filling up the 4 gallon tank about once every two round trips, so I did a one way after putting a gallon in at a half tank and sure enough, I arrived with the needle a little higher than it was at (not perfect accuracy, but confirmation enough for me). I'm a pretty simple rider, no need to goose the engine (well, ok, occasionally). It's an all highway drive most of it rural highway (no passing lane) at 55 MPH, too, so it's basically the most ideal circumstances for fuel economy, too.
It's the 2011 Honda NT700V and I love the thing. It's a sport/touring (nothing like a crotch rocket or a monster touring bike), very comfortable to ride, quiet and since purchase it has had zero problems and I have been able to do all of the routine maintenance myself due to it being easy to take apart. Granted, I live in Michigan so I don't get to ride it 5-6 months out of the year and I've got under 10,000 miles on it so I'd expect it to still be running well. The only downside is the oil filter is a smaller version of a very common filter, requiring me to buy it online and it use 10-W30 oil which is really hard to find retail (Motorcycles use different oil -- wet clutch -- who knew?) -- online it's twice the price I can get it retail when enough of it is in stock (O'Reilly carries a high-end synthetic for it that I purchase a quart at a time when I'm there for other reasons -- they've never had 3 in stock at a time).
The bailout provisions required some pretty strict limitations on dividends. As I understand it, quite a few members of the Ford family derive a significant portion of their income from FoMoCo stock dividends.
It doesn't hurt that Ford was able to borrow large amounts of money before the meltdown, so they had the capital to weather the storm.
Ford had been improving well before the auto crisis, but they were never in danger of going under. It was Chrysler and GM. Ford never took the bailout, honestly, I think that helped their sales a lot. Hard to shake the "Government Motors" or the "Fiat" image.
Toyota is still the best. People are always shocked when they hear how many miles I have on my 2006 Tacoma. I also like Subaru, surprised they ranked as that expensive to maintain.
The only problem I have with Toyotas (and I'm in a new Camry rental after a Rav4 got totalled) is that the suspension, handling, and styling seemed to be designed by people who hate driving.
I have an 06 Tacoma and I prefer its handling to every other vehicle I've driven, including the F-150, Tundra, Outback (though the Outback is the most similar), Mercedes-Benz crossover (don't know the exact model.) I've also driven a Viper and a Corvette, but I'm not including those in my comparison for obvious reasons. I think it's just preference. Then again, trucks have different suspension than cars. My mom used to have a Camry, and I never liked driving it. It might just be a truck thing.
YMMV: We had a 2014 Fiesta with a DCT and the thing worked like a first time driver on a manual. Herky jerky, seemingly missing clutch engagement. They might have done a lot better with interior build quality, and their higher end models are impressive (hell, their 3 cyl 1.0L turbo engine for the Fiesta is a masterclass in small car powerplants), but they aren't even halfway to a Honda or Toyota, who have essentially reinvented (and continue to reinvent) car manufacturing.
I recommend watching James May's Building a Car documentary. It was a fascinating window into all the aspects of car QA.
Ford never took bailout money AFAIK. They revitalized on their own which is very commendable. If they were just a little bit more reliable I'd probably buy one.
My parents buy Fords almost exclusively and they range from about as reliable as my Honda to abysmal and expensive so YMMV.
I bought a 2014 Focus, which I think has developed quite a reputation for expensive and frequent repairs. Fortunately, the primary (overwhelmingly so) candidate is the transmission.
This played into my decision when I got a 2014 Focus as well. I got a manual transmission.
Its much harder to screw up a manual. The Dual-clutch thing is somewhat innovative, but the Focus's engine is high-rev / turbo-charged (getting the most power at 4000+ RPM). At the low-end, the engine is jerky and everything.
Its much smoother when I rev the engine higher (maybe 3000+ or even 4000+) before shifting up. I'm not really sure how the "automatic" DCT of the Focus is supposed to manage the engine without things getting shaky.
I definitely recommend the 2014 as a manual car. Very simple driving behavior fix to just rev the engine a little higher.
We've got a 2012 Focus as our sole car (my other car is a motorcycle if I'm looking to go all "bumper sticker" with my phrases). I believe this was the first year that they switched the US Focus to be the same as the European version which was a different, superior vehicle in past years.
It's also a manual and it's the base model so the interior trim is boring black plastic. Stereo and all that are very basic and there's absolutely nothing exciting about the car.
That said, It was under $15k new in the late summer of 2011, hasn't had any major issues or maintenance other than scheduled visits, oil changes, and the like.
Granted we've only had it for 5 years but the thing is paid for and for $15k, it's been a fine commuter car and for the few longer trips we take every year. Previous car was a used (forget the year) Jetta with fancy heated leather seats, 6 speed, sweet stereo, moon roof, and all that fun stuff. The damn thing was in the shop at least two or more times per year during the few years we had it before we threw in the towel and traded it in on the Focus.
Sure, I sorta liked the perks and that 6 speed, 6cyl was a hell of a lot more fun to drive but it wasn't thousands-more-per-year more fun to drive. The car was also not new when we got it so it's not a fair comparison to a car purchased new. If anything, I think I learned that buying a new (or newer) car that's simpler with a lower base cost can still be less spendy than going used when you add in maintenance costs.
The Mk3 Focus (2012 and later) has a surprisingly perky engine above 4000 RPM. I'd say its one of the funnest rides under $20k brand new. As you note: there are plenty of low-end models that are ~$15k for a completely brand new car.
The Mazda3 manual transmission has slightly better low-end torque and a solid transmission. Its only slightly more expensive, but I personally didn't like the layout of the interior and the placement of the windows. Otherwise, great car with a superior engine to the Focus.
Ford borrowed $5.9 billion from the Department of Energy in June 2009 through the TALF program. Another ~$2.1 billion was given to Nissan ($1.6b) and Tesla ($465m) from that at the same time. It was a $25 billion fund for encouraging higher fuel efficiency.
I'm not American, so I don't have an intricate knowledge about your car market, but isn't GM doing relatively well since the bailout? At least their Volt/Bolt models seem to be pretty innovative, at the moment it would be my choice (i.e. the Opel Ampera derivative) if I were to look for a new car.
Fairly well. I could be wrong but I believe during the big 2008 downturn people stopped buying cars, yet of course GM needed to keep paying off their capital expenses. So they had a classic cash flow problem. Now sales are normative like you'd expect. Might be a silver lining in that the crisis likely motivated management to make improvements[1].
Although I'm under the impression that their fiance division GMAC took big loses. The standard wikepidia link seems to say GM divested before the big crisis hit.
Have had two Kia Rio's (2008 and 2013), the 2008 model was definitely maintenance intensive vehicle and frankly poorly built vehicle[1], but the 2013 seems to be a much better car. I'm at 130,000 miles and it seems to be doing fine and nothing big has happened and it deals well with ND winters when I cannot plug in the block heater[2].
1) the timing belt did fail a bit earlier than the maintenance checks suggest (yes, its game over right there), but the 2013 has a chain. Spark plugs were also an issue on the 2008 along with brakes.
2) no outlets at apartment, so goes the whole electric thing
I live in Michigan and my father owns a business that supplies to the automotive industry, so he's always bought from the Big Three[0]. Though I was really young, in the 80s, buying a Toyota or another foreign vehicle and parking in my part of Michigan had a high probability of coming back to your car and finding a nice, long, keying had taken place. It's rare now, but it's hard to forget and when GM/Chrysler were in crisis a few years ago, there was an uptick in that behavior.
Infotainment
Provided you have one from 2013 or later. Otherwise you get a really nice looking screen that won't fscking pair with your Android (or disconnects) 30% of the time.
Reliability/Ford
They do care about reliability (and the Ford Fusion was in that list). I've owned only American cars and with the exception of a Chrysler that was effectively a lemon, I've not had any that experienced expensive repairs over 8 different vehicles (anecdote, yes). The issue is that reliability has a cost and the Big Three have a unique cost not shared by the foreign manufacturers -- the UAW[1]. I think the number I read was $1,500[2] would be saved if the vehicles were built in a non-union plant. That has to come from somewhere. I think in more recent model years, though, the quality has improved due to competition from foreign brands breaking even the most die-hard "Buy American" people. The number of foreign non-luxury vehicles on the road in SE Michigan is way higher than I've seen it in my lifetime. It's still a minority, here, but if Michiganians are increasingly buying foreign, that's a wake-up call for the big 3.
You're dead on, though. At current count of family and friends, I have talked to eight people who switched to Honda or Toyota from Ford or GM. All of them cited a car with multiple quality issues as the reason they switched. The more interesting part for me was that all of them were on leases where their time of ownership put them within the warranty period for all repairs -- they didn't have to pay for any of them! But where we live, being without a car leaves you forced to rent (in one case for almost a month). Public transportation is limited to a really lousy bus service that might or might not arrive within an hour of the posted scheduled time (if at all) and require several transfers to get to your destination, making a 30 minute drive take ... an average Thursday by bus.
A fundamental change has to take place at the autos -- one with a focus purely on quality of the product. The US market vehicles, when I last purchased, offered few with warranties over 40,000 miles. They have a reputation for producing sub-par vehicles. To fix it, they'd need to do something extreme. Build a car with a hyper-focus on reliability and toss a 150,000 mile 10 year comprehensive warranty on it[3] (if it's built well, it'll cost them no more than it does today). If they take it to that extreme, they'll be believed by the industry press and the buyer.
[0] When people say "Buying American" they're usually referring to these guys, which is another way of saying UAW built cars. There's no car that I'm aware of that is built 100% in America with American parts and some vehicles from foreign brands have a larger percentage built in the United States (by non-union plants usually located in the South) than the equivalent in their categories from the big three.
[1] No, I'm not a union fan, but I also do not work in the automotive industry so, in general, I don't care.
[2] I don't have the exact number and I couldn't find it from a quick Google search. The counter to this is always "the foreign cars have import costs!" which is true, but so do the American brands (see point [0]) and in a lot of cases, the foreign brands offset that cost by assembling in American plants ... in the South ... that are non-unio...
I was waiting in line at the rental car facility last year at Detroit airport. A guy kept letting people go in front of him since he "had to have a GM". I suppose it didn't bode well to visit some business in a non GM car.
Depending on the company, you want to be in their car. I noticed the Ford plant on Mound has a large sign "Ford Only Lot". My dad does business with all of them (and a few of the foreign plants down south, too). I don't know what the politics behind it are -- my Dad sells to all of them and a few of the southern foreign car plants -- he drives a Cadillac. I'll have to ask him if he gets crap for that when visiting Ford/Chrysler (which are large contracts for him).
The funny thing is, even they've changed a bit. My mom is in a Lexus hybrid, which shocked me. Their friends and neighbors passed away and owned the thing for three years with a few thousand miles on it. The family was willing to sell it to her at such a low price she couldn't pass it up. And it's a really nice car. Family circumstances also resulted in my dad getting an Audi TT convertible sports-toy which he stores up north (shh, don't tell anyone).
> Build a car with a hyper-focus on reliability and toss a 150,000 mile 10 year comprehensive warranty on it
Which is exactly what Hyundai did. They offer 10 year / 100k miles warranty. Contrary to the perception, their warranty gave me confidence to try it, and I've been happy with it so far.
i had a ford focus 2002, ran to 150,000 miles and it got totaled. The only things were replaced: timing belt, tires, brakes, fuel filter, plugs, O2 sensor, alternator, one of the solenoid (maybe 3rd or 4th gear). Besides the solenoid and the alternator all items are maintenance.
At 100K miles, there's a pretty good argument that the alternator is maintenance as well. (If it died very early, maybe not, but it's a rotating part with brushes; it's eventually going to need maintenance on any car.)
Absolutely agree. In addition to that we should include things like: radiator, radiator and heater hoses, air conditioning compressor, timing belt, break rotors (disks) and, automatic transmission, suspension bushes and shock absorbers, wheel bearings, exhaust pipes, mufflers, catalytic converters.
I only buy secondhand cars, and these are all things I've replaced, either myself or by mechanics. All these things will eventually wear out on a car, but replacing most of these parts is relatively straight forward, and I believe in expensive in comparison to the huge financial outlay require to purchase a new vehicle - in which we ought to include the depreciation as well as the running costs and maintenance.
Maintenance items do not (or should not IMO) count as reliability items since they are similar expected expenses on all cars. Timing belt would be the only one I would look at because there can be significant differences in the mileage intervals. VW famously has (or had) a fairly short interval, like 30K miles, and very low tolerance for going over that. Other vehicles can go 100K miles before any engine maintenance beyond fluid changes.
Anecdotes are not data but I have a 2002 Ford Focus that I'm hugely happy with. Approaching 200,000 miles and zero significant issues. Also previously had an F150 that was great also until it was totaled in an accident. I would buy Ford without hesitation.
I had a 2000 Ford Focus that I drove for 209,000 miles in 12 years. Great car. Mine was a standard and red. I had a few recalls early on but overall it was a great car.
With the American cars, you have to focus on the flagship, high volume cars. They stuff the junk in to fill out the line (i.e. The Chevy/Daewoo thing)
My Ford vs Honda experience has been pretty similar. Great or Awful. I had a 2005 Odyessy and 2003 Pilot. Basically the same car, but the Odyssey was crap - literally had a door fall off.
Likewise, I had a Fusion and a 500/Taurus. The 500 had lots of stupid, expensive problems with trim, electronics, etc. The Fusion was flawless.
Each has its bad models to stay away from. I find no problem with Ford. My 2000 v6 mustang is still fine at 200k miles. I have a relative that has 1989 Ford Ranger that has 450K miles on it. Same engine, never rebuilt. Though he did have to replace the transmission in 1996 and again just last year.
I think the thing that lead to Asian cars getting a good name was their switch to using all synthetic fluids in the late 1990's. You could buy a Nissan or Toyota and drive it for 8 year straight with no other maintenance other than oil changes and be just fine.
Do the same thing with an American car of that era and you will go through several stages. If you did nothing but change the oil, at the 5 year mark the car would be mostly destroyed. The conventional anti-freeze would have completely broken down at the 3 year mark and now your entire cooling system would be solid rust.
Your brakes will also be on the way out, as the normal DOT3 brake fluid absorbs water and after 5 years it will have become corrosive and it will be eating holes in your brake lines and brake pistons. The non synthetic power steering fluid will also be at the end of life and it will be destroying the seals in your steering rack.
And if its an automatic transmission, there is about 2 gallons of non synthetic transmission fluid in it that went bad 2 years ago and now the accelerated seal and metal wear is going to start clogging up the tiny fluid circuits so now one day your car will stay stuck in neutral... Oh and the engine will be running very rough more than likely too by now as the non-platinum sparks plugs are definitely wore out beyond use.
But if you change those fluids every 3 years or so, you are good for a few decades :)
You certainly can (in most cases). But the examples I spoke of are what I would consider extreme neglect (even though every one pretty much treats their vehicle that way).
Is your life that busy that you can't even find time once every three years to change the fluids yourself (or pay a shop to do it)?
You can't always substitute. Specifically in brakes, steering and transmission. The seals on the systems and the viscosities of the fluids are often set with very specific limits.
In the past, there were some Ford vehicles that were well known for their ability to keep going for 300,000+ miles.
Like the early 90's Ford Trucks with the straight 6, the Ranger, and the Crown Vic with the 4.6L V8. All discontinued, or the reliable engine replaced with something not as reliable.
I'm really confused by this data. How could the average cost of the most expensive model be less than the cost of the most expensive brand?
For example, I'm taking issue with all BMW's costing $17,800 over 10 years on average. Yet, the BMW model with the highest maintenance cost, the 328i, only costs $15,600 over 10 years.
Edit: Tried, quite unsuccessfully, to improve clarity
I may have miscommunicated but I wasn't concerned with the realism of the costs - I was questioning the relation of the values.
If you have two sets of numbers, S and T, then I'm quite confident MEAN(S ∪ T) must fall between MIN(MEAN(S), MEAN(T)) and MAX(MEAN(S), MEAN(T)) inclusive.
In this case, the costs of maintenance for a given vehicle model are the sets and, so, the cost for a brand as a whole would be (S ∪ T ∪ V...).
Yeah, I got ya now. The problem is that repairs can continue. $450 for brakes? Ok. $800 for tires + alignment. $125 for a new battery. $600 to replace a bent rim and it's pair. When data like this indicates that the maintenance cost of BMWs or other vehicles is higher, it's not just a question of quality: many times the parts + labor are just more expensive.
No, you don't. He's saying the math doesn't add up in terms of how they calculated the mean of the brand and the 'highest' avg. mean of the models (in that brand).
Yes, I do... the single model 328i, if it is in fact the worst of the BMW models, should be above the average cost of the BMW models. According to the first table, it isn't. They made a mistake.
Also, there's absolutely no way that the 328i is the most expensive BMW model. It's probably the most reliable (and highest volume) model sold in the US, and maintenance is cheap compared to the M-model and V8/V12 cars that BMW sells.
BMW has many more expensive models than the 3 series models. 5, 7, 8s are all much more expensive. Perhaps that is how the average 10 year cost is greater than the 328s?
The article doesn't really explain things very well. Why did they only pick those 20 models to compare? I think they are all in the same price range? This is probably appealing to "mainstream" models, rather than enthusiast or luxury models.
I was wondering a bit about this, myself. Also, the costs on some of the more extreme ends of the luxury markets are higher for pretty much everything. My parents own an Audi convertible sports toy. They had to have the clutch[0] replaced last year at a cost of almost $5,000. Oil changes run $100. Audi was high on the list, yes, but other luxury brands weren't that have similarly expensive repair/maintenance costs.
[0] For Americans, where Manual Transmission is much like the Big Foot. You hear about it, but nobody's actually seen it, this is a part of a Manual Transmission car that wears out over time and is guaranteed to require repair.
> I'm really confused by this data. How could the average cost of the most expensive model be less than the cost of the most expensive brand?
It's because the brand estimates are not based on actual costs, but only on oil changes:
“In order to estimate annual maintenance costs, we found the amount spent on every two oil changes (as oil changes are generally done every six months).”
Yet the actual oil change intervals for at least BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Volvo are between once a year and once every two years, or after between 7500 and 15000 miles, depending on the brand and model.
I've had this idea for a long time. It would be amazing to get the data on exactly what gets fixed in each of the auto repair shops, which then would let you figure out which cars are the most reliable, and how much owning one would cost in the long run, and maybe leads to some preventative measures to minimize the damage. I thought about it for years, and couldn't figure out a way to get the data cheaply.
There is no way to get the data cheaply. There's a sizable industry around this - of which YourMachanic is newer part.
Repair data is used to set part prices, determine the TCO of a vehicle (similar this report shows). It is also used by the US government to mine the data for recalls.
The residual data from the newer breed of online repair sites (YourMechanic, Mitchell's & Motor's offering, etc.) is hugely valuable... and in no way is easy to get to.
The reason is that repair information (part #'s, labor costs, repair procedures, fluid levels, etc.) is extremely hard to digitize from 25 different manufacturers. No one uses a billing / estimating system unless is includes that data.
Does it take into account the fact that BMW offers free service (even oil changes) for 3 years (36,000 miles) and on top of that you can get relatively cheap extensions, and if you buy a certified pre-owned used car you get a "free" extra 2 years /50K miles on top of the original warranty and you can even get an extra protection plan for 6 years/100K miles.
I also wonder how that affects what the total amount 'billed' ends up being. For instance, if BMW corporate is footing the bill for all the maintenance/warranty issues for the first 3/4 years of ownership, are they more likely to 'repair' minor issues without asking the customer?
Where as say a Volkswagon owner may not bother to have the dealership spend 3 hours diagnosing a squeak or minor rough idle knowing they have to foot the bill?
Yep, I've owned 2. Both used, both sold, in good running condition, when they were ten years old. Neither required expensive maintenance. Neither was in the shop, other than for an underbody shield which got damaged by debris.
There's something ironic about it. Here they got a car which "looks" like a reliable military vehicle, that you'd think could take it to some remove off-road location (desert, camping, etc). Yet as a brand, it is most likely to fail to start.
Yes, something ironic about the fact it may have the same flaw as the military one, and that neither administration, nor the military forces that are making so much stats to evaluate their field incident saw it... Oh, I forgot, yes the humvee has flawed (lack of resistance against RPG, direct hit, bombs).
Guess that could be the reason why so much humvees have been given by the army to the police force recently thanks to the 1033 program.
"This data reveals which companies live up to their reputation for reliability (Toyota), which brands sacrifice reliability for prestige (BMW and Mercedes-Benz), and which models deserved to be discontinued (the Hummer 3)."
Ouch. There's one more reason to laugh at people who bought the H3.
It's interesting to compare this US survey with this one from a 2015 UK survey of 50,000 car users.
In summary, Japanese cars were deemed the most reliable and relatively cheap to maintain, while German cars were the least reliable according to the survey's respondents.
The rankings were calculated according to how often a car needed to be repaired, and the cost of the repairs.
I have a coworker with an Audi that spent months without driving. For some reason, it has 6(!) catalytic converters and multiple failed. The car refuses to drive if they are not working properly, so he had to save up to replace them all.
It's kind of crazy to think of it this way- most cars on the list have one engine to think about.
But the car with the lowest maintenance cost- the Toyota Prius, which had the full gas engine system PLUS an electric battery+motor, and the complexities managing the two together. Truly remarkable. Toyota should be really proud.
I do believe that, while Toyota should be commended on its engineering, the electric motor is actually beneficial to reduce wear and tear on the most expensive parts. This seems to be supported by the fact that are many other Toyota models in the low maintenance list, but only the Prius at the top.
The prius is pretty mature now too. And the "synergy" system is licensed to third parties. Nissan uses it on their hybrid models.
Disclaimer: Nissan Leaf owner. I am not expecting high maintenance bills either. The only thing that worries me is the weight of the vehicle and the crappy OEM tires it comes with.
I don't think the hybrid nature of the Prius simply means that there's more opportunities for things to go wrong. The fact that there's a large battery capable of supplying power means that the engine RPMs don't have to spike as much when you floor the accelerator, so the presence of a battery could significantly reduce the overall wear and tear on the internal combustion engine and thus reduce the overall need for repairs, despite increasing the number of parts.
Right! This is the exactly way to think about it.
Engines are pretty much "figured out" by now. It's hard to get terribly complex there (exception: Audi. Seriously, fuck Audi).
It's all about performance relative to peak load! A power supply, like the one in your computer, performs much better over a longer life when it never crosses 80% peak load than one that is constantly above 80%.
I have a Prius that i drive daily so I can add a few more points:
- Engine shuts off a lot during normal gentle driving.
- The air conditioning compressor is electrically driven and only come on as necessary
- Regenerative braking reduces wear on brakes. I am still on original brakes after 72000 miles.
My understanding is that the process of converting kinetic energy back to some form of potential energy in a regenerative braking system doesn't actually employ the brake pads at all. So the brake pads are only used when the driver pushes the brake pedal past the maximum capacity of the regenerative braking system. Depending on driving conditions, and especially if the driver maintains a proper following distance, this could be fairly rare.
Is the modern system based on division of labor more reliable ? it can be much more reliable if designed properly. And there's no secret - smart complexity can buy reliability.
But sure, the toyota hybrid is an impressive piece of engineering.
I was personally surprised by this as well. In fact, it's the single biggest reason I didn't purchase a hybrid vehicle outside of the initial cost being much higher at the time. My thinking was, yes electric cars are quite a bit simpler and have enjoyed a lower repair rate due to that simplicity but here's a car with all of the repair issues that would be found in a gasoline vehicle, all of the added repairs that might come up from the electric engine and then repairs associated with all of the fancy features like regenerative braking and such, not to mention the battery. And they're in the extreme minority meaning I'd either have to hunt for a third-party shop that happened to have a really skilled mechanic who happened to understand all of these odd systems (say goodbye to trusted family friend who's a mechanic and really inexpensive) or get utterly hosed at the dealer. I had a car that had to have the transmission rebuilt multiple times -- a very costly repair ($2400/time in the late 90s)
I guess, though, when I think about the common repairs that car owners experience, "Engine Failure" is rarely one of them, so maybe that's one of the core reasons that having two engines doesn't affect things much, but the battery, which is a part that has a guaranteed wear associated scared me quite a bit.
"What kind of engine it has" is very much secondary to build quality. An 80s Lada and Volkswagon both had the same internals, yet one had to be repaired before it rolled off the production line.
The design of the car places an upper boundary on reliability. Whether or not you hit that upper boundary is up to your manufacturing line.
As a Prius owner, I am also amused by the oft-repeated Tesla claim of 'All electric! Simpler system! Fewer repairs!' - given the many production defects they seem to have.
> As a Prius owner, I am also amused by the oft-repeated Tesla claim of 'All electric! Simpler system! Fewer repairs!' - given the many production defects they seem to have.
Those are not mutually exclusive. You can have fewer parts and a simpler system and yet a high number of failures. That just means they need to improve the manufacturing.
Another way to look at is: your Prius is not much more complicated than a "normal" car, as the EV portion adds so few parts ;)
And that's assuming Tesla really does have that many defects to begin with. Much like their accidents, could be biased reporting.
They aren't - but as a consumer, the only metric that matters is: "How often does the car break?" Cries of "Simpler system" cloud the issue.
When talking about reliability, I don't care if it's reliable because it uses an ICE, or because it runs on rainbows and unicorn dust. I just care that it's reliable!
Agreed. They are using the potential higher reliability as a marketing point. Everything else being equal, they'd be right. But everything else is not equal, at least not yet.
"As a Prius owner, I am also amused by the oft-repeated Tesla claim of 'All electric! Simpler system! Fewer repairs!' - given the many production defects they seem to have."
In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice, they're not.
Two things about the Prius are the motors are brushless dc motors and the transmission is (far as I know) a fixed gear planetary drive. Both are very reliable well understood technologies.
Prius also gets a double bonus in that Toyota is oriented around selling low cost of ownership cars; higher upfront cost offset by lower maintenance costs and higher resale value. And because the Prius was their first hybrid vehicle they put extra effort to nail down the design.
Close, the prius drivetrain is two brushless 3 phase motors nested in one another. This allows regenerative braking and charging while still providing power to the final drive. Fun fact the ICE in the prius is an (1) Atkinson cycle which operates at a specific efficiency instead of a powerband. The engine revs up to a low or high range but doesn't have a traditional linear powerband.
There's another notable Atkinson engine in some petrol Honda Civic Euro FK2 (2006-2011), can't remember engine code, but on that one i-VTEC is able to let inlet valves up during the beginning of the up stroke compression phase, turning the 140hp 1.8l engine into down to a 1.6l one. Turbo-less downsizing with all the benefits of a full-size (aluminium, so lightweight) block. Interesting tech. I owned one, the resulting fuel economy puts diesel engine to shame.
Yeah. What I though was neat about the Hybrid Synergy drive is how they use the strength of each component to compensate for the weakness of the others.
Atkinson drive: very efficient, but over a narrow speed and output range.
Mechanical gear train: Inefficiencies in the high nineties. But gear ratios are fixed.
Electric drive train: Not as efficient as a mechanical gear trains, but is efficient over a very wide speed range.
Add those up and you have a high efficiency mechanical power path through the planetary gear. And you use the electric power path to divert enough power from the engine to keep it running at it's most efficient. Because you have the electric power path you can cycle energy to and from the battery. Which gives you regenerative breaking, and allows you to stop the engine completely when you don't need power.
I don't trust those numbers for the hybrids. I have a hybrid and replaced the hybrid battery pack. It was expensive. I'd expect a dealer quote for a replacement would run several thousand dollars. I'd also expect the average battery to be replaced at least once in those ten years. That cost would be most of the average upkeep cost
You have options for non-oem battery packs that are less expensive, but you are going to have problems finding an independent shop who will work on it. Dealers won't work with non-oem parts, and most shops won't want to work on the HV electrical system in your hybrid. I haven't found a local independent shop who will work on the hybrid systems. You can do some work yourself, the companies that sell non-oem battery packs will tell you that you can. But you should definitely be comfortable working with HV electrical systems if you want to do it yourself.
Some independent shops will work on hybrid systems, I found a mechanic with a great reputation that I'm really happy with. He was literally half the price of some of the dealer quotes. But he's in an entirely different state. Independent shops that specialize in hybrids are hard to find.
Plus there are other systems involved with the hybrid, like the transmission, that I would assume would usually be a dealer repair. So I'm assuming this list isn't including the costs to repair the hybrid systems. I think those will usually be dealer repairs.
That is true, but that is because of the state, not the dealer. I actually had some frustrating problems with that. My battery was out of warranty, but if I had been dealing with California regulations it would have been in warranty. I ended up getting a large goodwill discount, so that was nice of the dealer. But it was a little frustrating to realize that my expensive car repair would have been free in another state.
352 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 284 ms ] thread(Seriously, does anyone think Mazdas are boring? Do you drive?)
And you're gonna need it.
> created: 1177 days ago
Pretty simple to check really.
I purchased the "extended maintenance plan" (increasing all scheduled maintenance from 36k to 60k) on my 2012 for $2500 and have only paid an additional couple hundred in maintenance since then.
I'm not counting tires - which I have spent quite a bundle on due to having both summer and winter tires and wheels for my vehicle.
Though my RX-7 is a beast to maintain, financially. I imagine they're only tracking models that are still current for the past 10 years.
Also some 'common' but lower-volume brands are not on the list at all (Alfa Romeo is a notable exception here)
FC > e30 BMW > AP1 S2000 > W204 C63 P31
You can get above 500 horsepower on that light little car easier and cheaper than any other platform I can think of. Considering you're starting around 186 (Turbo S4?) that's pretty great...and the car will be ~2500 lbs with you in it?
I'm rebuilding my S2000 right now turning it into a 2.4L stroker for 300+ hp. :D
I loved our Alfa, but my word was it expensive to maintain (and broke a LOT).
Even though Ford made improvements, it wasn't until like '96 that Lucas went out of business and was out of the mix...
Owner of a mazda 6 (almost 2 years), no repairs needed thus far, when I got it it had been top rated in consumer reports; is there something I should be looking out for? (brief googling didn't turn up anything; to the child and others since I'm limited by response rate, my curiosity was peaked by the high cost I saw in the article, but I haven't heard what might cause that high cost)
Mostly I've seen that they're fine though, there must be something that I'm not familiar with that's reflected in the data.
So... yeah, Mazda6, not so much.
For example the Mazda6 has great legroom but bad headroom. The CX-5 has great headroom but bad legroom. The CX-3 has bad both.
If you need a vehicle with good headroom AND legroom you're almost required to buy a Subaru (Forester, Legacy, or Outback), Prius V, Toyota RAV4, or Nissan Rogue. It is pathetic how limited the choice is.
PS - You can see roominess metrics on Edmunds[0], just scroll down to interior measurements.
[0] http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius-v/2016/wagon/features-sp...
I agree though. Luckily Toyotas and Subarus are a solid buy...well, with the subbies as long as you have no intention of modifying anything underhood (I swear that brand is the king of engine rebuilds).
The Transit Connect isn't appropriate for consumers, it hasn't passed any of IIHS's tests, has no safety ratings at all, and is considered a commercial vehicle. I'm not putting my kids into something with no safety data on it.
But, yes, the list isn't exhaustive. I just wanted to make the point that Mazda in particular has slim pickings for tall drivers with long legs.
Before anyone runs off in celebration of pure EVs just note the number of vehicles being sampled. Issue arise from defects for sure, as they do for wear and tear. However a lot of issues on older cars are because of lack of care. One of the reasons manufactures like BMW include service for 4x50 is so that even the leased cars would get serviced.
There are a few exaggerated entries on the list, one I know of is the Nissan Murano. Its listed quite high but that might have been because of the CVT issues faced in 05-07 that were remedied with Nissan extending the warranties.
Compact fluorescents should last ~6x longer than incandescents, yet since the commoditization of them, you'll find the circuits in the cheaper ones often fail long before the fluorescent tube itself would have failed (I recently did a teardown of about 20 of my own failed CFL's. About 2/3 had functioning tubes with blown circuits).
I similarly lament seeing an LED traffic light or LED vehicle tail light on the fritz, knowing that the individual LED's themselves probably had another 20 years of life left in them, yet met their fate early due to a bad solder joint or blown mosfet, etc...
BMW parts are expensive.
https://www.google.com/#q=bwm+model+prices
Your answer doesn't help understanding how the article finds the average BMW maintenance cost to be higher than that of the BMW model with the highest maintenance cost. Unless brand costs are not calculated as a mean but something else very different, which is not explained.
Apparently, the 328i has a relatively common oil-leakage problem. http://repairpal.com/bmw/328i
Don't have the labor costs for a valve cover gasket, but they could be sizable. Scrolling down on repairpal web page above, apparently they can cost up to $1000?
No wonder BMW 328i is in the higher range for maint. costs!
The problem is that paying for parts and parts replacement piece by piece is significantly more expensive than buying a new bike (or a car) as a whole.
Repair costs like that adds up quickly. Like the $1200 3rd row seat motor that died. She started calling it the thousand-dollar-car, since any repairs were around that price.
As another commenter pointed out, this is quite common on performance and luxury vehicles because it has handling advantages. If you're buying a luxury car, you're by definition choosing to pay more than is absolutely necessary for (what you consider to be) a better experience. The tires are part of that. You can argue that the line should be drawn elsewhere, but it's not arbitrary, and it's very much in line with the market segment they're going after.
Performance vehicles I disagree. Handling choices are up to the mechanic/driver and you want to give them options but also make their maintenance choices simple. You should have a wide range of tire options on a performance car.
It's a SUV. They get used to tow boats, take science-fair projects to school, and take the family on vacations. They aren't used for track days at Road Atlanta.
None of what you describe is unique to Cadillac -- this is what it is to own a luxury automobile. If it is not worth the price, don't buy one.
Which may be one reason why Lexus unexpectedly has a good total cost of ownership.
BTW, the Lexii had far fewer squeaks and rattles after 6 years than the Cadillac did, and had a much quieter ride overall.
Or daily driving it.
I don't really think of the new ones because they're almost boringly pedestrian to me. Not that anyone should need to drive a dangerous car to have fun -- you don't. I just find the last decade or so (or two even?) of the 911's history to be mostly devoid of character over its competitors.
Edit: Moreover, I don't want any car to be "pleasant" to drive at high speed. That sounds just way too relaxed for that level of speed. It should be pleasant at much lower speeds, absolutely, but honestly anything above 70mph and especially 90mph should require 100% engagement. That doesn't necessitate being difficult, but still not something I want to describe as pleasant. Your grandparents could probably comfortably drive the new GT-R at 130mph in pouring rain. That should absolutely not be encouraged. I've driven at that speed in bad weather and it requires me to be hyper-alert.
Here in Germany a Hausfrau returning from shopping drives 120mph+ easily so people here are used to a higher default speed level than in the US where you are allowed 65mph. Often when overtaking on Autobahns you drive 130mph and some nervous Porsche/AMG etc. drivers blink at you to leave the fast lane so that they can pass.
I'm worried about physics. ΔV will kill you.
I try as much as possible to eliminate the compounding effects of things-gone-wrong. ΔV is a multiplier in an accident.
Edit/Aside: The ultimate oversteering screaming death car is the Omni GLHS. Man is that thing a hoot. But yeah, even if you don't hit them, I think that you should be able to see where the limits of a car may lie. I don't get that sense driving some of the modern "accessible" sportscars and that feeling actually makes me more nervous to drive them.
I agree that the Boxster/Cayman are more aligned with "entry level sports cars".
Another factor might also be that many high end imports are services at the dealer/speciality shops and the service interactions with your mechanic are for cars that have less than stellar maintenance-- which skews the picture significantly.
The danger of buying a Miata first is that you might skip Porsche altogether.
"Luxury imports from Germany, such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz, along with domestic luxury brand Lexus, are the most expensive"
>In order to estimate annual maintenance costs, we found the amount spent on every two oil changes (as oil changes are generally done every six months).
This cost only considers oil changes? That is not a realistic cost of total maintenance over 10 years.
I think in your quote they're saying they're using oil changes as a unit of time. This is because oil changes are usually done on a regular cycles, and because when you get your oil changed you often get your other maintenance done.
Anecdata: Just over 250,000 on my 2007 Honda CRV and with $1k in unscheduled mechanical maintenance and around another $1k in non-mechanical maintenance.
Assuming a 10,000 mile oil change cycle (I only change the oil when the car recommends it, and it seems to avg about 10k miles) that's 25 oil changes so far, for a total of ~$1800 (assuming dealer oil change + full synthetic, which has been all but two of my oil changes so far; does not include tax).
Warning, opinions ahead: In my experience, most people do not follow the recommended preventative maintenance plans for their vehicles, and rely solely on oil, tires, and gas changes, and all three only when necessary.
Here be dragons: At an over-all average MPG (according to the car's own computer) of 25, I've spent more on fuel than the cost of the vehicle, including loan interest, in the 250,000 miles.
Getting waaaaay out there: 32k for car + interest, 35k in fuel, 10k in other scheduled work (I believe in preventative maintenance), upgrades, cleaning, etc for a total cost of ownership of about ~80k means I've paid ~$3/mile driven.
The only listed maintence items to 120,000 miles are: Replace brake fluid, Replace in-cabin microfilter, Rotate tires
https://owners.nissanusa.com/content/techpub/ManualsAndGuide...
Your logic is not too far off actually. Our cars have no spark plugs(and cables), radiators, starter motors killing the 12v battery, gas pumps, fuel lines, fuel filters, oil, etc. So much less to worry about.
Heck, even the brake pads should last longer, due to the regenerative braking.
So barring any unforeseen events (such as something like the inverter or the internal charging burning out, which I haven't seen in the Leaf forums), the maintenance costs should be pretty low indeed. These things you mention are pretty cheap.
Honestly, they should depreciate way less than they currently do. Those things are incredibly reliable, and the current battery chemistry is way better than the first model, even if it is not thermally managed.
That may change when Tesla's 30K-ish vehicle launches.
Why don't American manufacturers work to improve their reliability? People really are buying Toyota/Honda/Mazda for that reason. And while Kia might be unreliable as all heck, they come with the best included warranty available[0].
American vehicles actually cost more too in many cases, so you're paying for the "privilege" of getting a less reliable vehicle.
[0] http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&story=ma...
Pre-bailout, Ford was pretty abysmal. I would actually say they were less reliable than GM. They took the influx of cash and overhauled their entire manufacturing AND design processes to turn out some great cars. The only thing in their lineup looking bleak to me is the Escape (ugh, just no).
The problem is that they're still pretty cheap on their interiors and panels tend to come loose and break a lot. American consumers tend to value interior over most other car features unfortunately. Modern Fords, save for the Escape, are pretty reliable and Honda has shown themselves to be much less so in recent years. Mazda is still too small volume to matter.
tl;dr: Ford is great now, Toyota is still on top, Honda is majorly slipping and GM still blows goats.
Clever PR misdirection on their part.
They were also lucky in their timing - they had already mortgaged about $18 billion in assets in 2006. Neither one of those events on their own would have been enough to save the company. Both turned them into a major competitor again.
We should have at least let GM burn in a fiery ball of death. Chrystler I'm a little less positive on as I generally approve of the Fiat deal and what the company has done since...some of it anyway.
When a supplier loses two customers while all its other customers order more parts than before, there might be some costs associated with adjusting to the new circumstances, but it won't go out of business.
"bailout" is a fairly fuzzy term. If the banking system was working, there would have been no need for DOE loans. There was also the benefit of improved milage, thereby reducing carbon emissions. This seems like the sort of thing the DOE does anyway, and wouldn't raise eyebrows in a sane banking environment. I think by your meaning of "bailout" student loans are also a bailout.
On the other hand, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They sold secured assets to new GM and new Chrysler and, i believe, gave investors quite a haircut.
With the loans they made to Ford they used a different tactic -- they said to hell with the financial risk (which you usually bake into your interest rate) and made the loans anyway and left open the possibility of devastating financial losses. The only reason we're looking at this positively is because Ford was a success story. Had Ford folded, congressional heads would have rolled and we'd be cursing the TALF loans and praising the TARP bailouts.
Ford was in better shape than the others because they had mortgaged everything before the financial system locked up. That means they also started improving everything sooner.
From my perspective in Michigan the auto bailout was a huge success. My friends in the industry report that most of the cruft in the big three was cut or let go and they really shifted the culture. The whole industry is focused on technology. The suppliers survived. Hundreds of thousands of jobs exist because of the injection of liquidity.
But i think we agree (since you changed your terms) it's not exactly a "bailout", but the timing sure was super handy for ford.
Not that they were doing well anyway, but Hurricane Sandy sure did kill off that company.
But that being said, the only useful data for reliability is after the first three years since very few vehicles have issues when they're "brand new." It is more in the long tail that they become expensive to keep on the road.
Next time I buy a vehicle I'll re-examine the reliability data and see if the picture has shifted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally
edit: Specifically cars only. Trucks are different.
Not everyone can afford a Mercedes.
Mercedes also had a horrible rust problem with their mid-late 90s cars. They switched to an environmentally friendly paint process that was terrible for paint adhesion and rust prevention. I have a perfectly good '98 E300D that's going to go the junkyard because of rust issues. Explain to me how that's saving the environment again?
I've been in a climate known for being hard on vehicles (Minnesota) for ten years and the only rust buckets I ever see on the roads are older American vehicles (Dodge SUV's and minivans in particular). I've owned Nissan and Honda vehicles in that time and never had issues with rust.
[0] Specifically, I purchased a model they'd brought over from Europe (good sized engine, sport/touring, 100+ miles to the gallon but "you don't buy a bike to save on gas") and the reviews for the European model were universally good.
[1] This was an actual quote from the guy at the Harley dealership after he succeeded in starting a floor model only to have it crap out after 5 seconds of idling. He thought I'd be impressed with how loud the damn thing was. Little did he know I wasn't looking to be that guy, I just always wanted a motorcycle and the bike I purchased is exceptionally quiet.
It's less about general dependability and more about a few slip ups that Honda made that are making people question the brand as a whole.
I bought a 2007 Honda Civic Ex because we needed 2 cars. Its a nice car, but Honda reliability has definitely fallen (though it is still miles ahead of European and US cars).
The new Honda Civic looks really good and seems reliable so my next car might be a Honda Civic (the 2007 is going strong and we drive so little I hope it lasts another 10 - 15 years). But there was a point between 2009 and 2014 when I felt Honda had lost its way with the god awful cheap iteration of the Honda Civic. It was essentially a money grab based on their reputation.
The worst car I ever owned was a 1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse. I used to joke that friends don't let friends by Mitsubishi
edit: I guess the Grom might come close?
It's the 2011 Honda NT700V and I love the thing. It's a sport/touring (nothing like a crotch rocket or a monster touring bike), very comfortable to ride, quiet and since purchase it has had zero problems and I have been able to do all of the routine maintenance myself due to it being easy to take apart. Granted, I live in Michigan so I don't get to ride it 5-6 months out of the year and I've got under 10,000 miles on it so I'd expect it to still be running well. The only downside is the oil filter is a smaller version of a very common filter, requiring me to buy it online and it use 10-W30 oil which is really hard to find retail (Motorcycles use different oil -- wet clutch -- who knew?) -- online it's twice the price I can get it retail when enough of it is in stock (O'Reilly carries a high-end synthetic for it that I purchase a quart at a time when I'm there for other reasons -- they've never had 3 in stock at a time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310...
It doesn't hurt that Ford was able to borrow large amounts of money before the meltdown, so they had the capital to weather the storm.
Toyota is still the best. People are always shocked when they hear how many miles I have on my 2006 Tacoma. I also like Subaru, surprised they ranked as that expensive to maintain.
When you take a small car and make the handling mushy, it's like driving a smore.
I recommend watching James May's Building a Car documentary. It was a fascinating window into all the aspects of car QA.
My parents buy Fords almost exclusively and they range from about as reliable as my Honda to abysmal and expensive so YMMV.
Its much harder to screw up a manual. The Dual-clutch thing is somewhat innovative, but the Focus's engine is high-rev / turbo-charged (getting the most power at 4000+ RPM). At the low-end, the engine is jerky and everything.
Its much smoother when I rev the engine higher (maybe 3000+ or even 4000+) before shifting up. I'm not really sure how the "automatic" DCT of the Focus is supposed to manage the engine without things getting shaky.
I definitely recommend the 2014 as a manual car. Very simple driving behavior fix to just rev the engine a little higher.
It's also a manual and it's the base model so the interior trim is boring black plastic. Stereo and all that are very basic and there's absolutely nothing exciting about the car.
That said, It was under $15k new in the late summer of 2011, hasn't had any major issues or maintenance other than scheduled visits, oil changes, and the like.
Granted we've only had it for 5 years but the thing is paid for and for $15k, it's been a fine commuter car and for the few longer trips we take every year. Previous car was a used (forget the year) Jetta with fancy heated leather seats, 6 speed, sweet stereo, moon roof, and all that fun stuff. The damn thing was in the shop at least two or more times per year during the few years we had it before we threw in the towel and traded it in on the Focus.
Sure, I sorta liked the perks and that 6 speed, 6cyl was a hell of a lot more fun to drive but it wasn't thousands-more-per-year more fun to drive. The car was also not new when we got it so it's not a fair comparison to a car purchased new. If anything, I think I learned that buying a new (or newer) car that's simpler with a lower base cost can still be less spendy than going used when you add in maintenance costs.
The Mazda3 manual transmission has slightly better low-end torque and a solid transmission. Its only slightly more expensive, but I personally didn't like the layout of the interior and the placement of the windows. Otherwise, great car with a superior engine to the Focus.
Although I'm under the impression that their fiance division GMAC took big loses. The standard wikepidia link seems to say GM divested before the big crisis hit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial
[1] Japanese auto companies tend to compete on quality and TCO. GM seemed stuck forever competing on sales price/brand loyalty.
Have had two Kia Rio's (2008 and 2013), the 2008 model was definitely maintenance intensive vehicle and frankly poorly built vehicle[1], but the 2013 seems to be a much better car. I'm at 130,000 miles and it seems to be doing fine and nothing big has happened and it deals well with ND winters when I cannot plug in the block heater[2].
1) the timing belt did fail a bit earlier than the maintenance checks suggest (yes, its game over right there), but the 2013 has a chain. Spark plugs were also an issue on the 2008 along with brakes.
2) no outlets at apartment, so goes the whole electric thing
I live in Michigan and my father owns a business that supplies to the automotive industry, so he's always bought from the Big Three[0]. Though I was really young, in the 80s, buying a Toyota or another foreign vehicle and parking in my part of Michigan had a high probability of coming back to your car and finding a nice, long, keying had taken place. It's rare now, but it's hard to forget and when GM/Chrysler were in crisis a few years ago, there was an uptick in that behavior.
Infotainment
Provided you have one from 2013 or later. Otherwise you get a really nice looking screen that won't fscking pair with your Android (or disconnects) 30% of the time.
Reliability/Ford
They do care about reliability (and the Ford Fusion was in that list). I've owned only American cars and with the exception of a Chrysler that was effectively a lemon, I've not had any that experienced expensive repairs over 8 different vehicles (anecdote, yes). The issue is that reliability has a cost and the Big Three have a unique cost not shared by the foreign manufacturers -- the UAW[1]. I think the number I read was $1,500[2] would be saved if the vehicles were built in a non-union plant. That has to come from somewhere. I think in more recent model years, though, the quality has improved due to competition from foreign brands breaking even the most die-hard "Buy American" people. The number of foreign non-luxury vehicles on the road in SE Michigan is way higher than I've seen it in my lifetime. It's still a minority, here, but if Michiganians are increasingly buying foreign, that's a wake-up call for the big 3.
You're dead on, though. At current count of family and friends, I have talked to eight people who switched to Honda or Toyota from Ford or GM. All of them cited a car with multiple quality issues as the reason they switched. The more interesting part for me was that all of them were on leases where their time of ownership put them within the warranty period for all repairs -- they didn't have to pay for any of them! But where we live, being without a car leaves you forced to rent (in one case for almost a month). Public transportation is limited to a really lousy bus service that might or might not arrive within an hour of the posted scheduled time (if at all) and require several transfers to get to your destination, making a 30 minute drive take ... an average Thursday by bus.
A fundamental change has to take place at the autos -- one with a focus purely on quality of the product. The US market vehicles, when I last purchased, offered few with warranties over 40,000 miles. They have a reputation for producing sub-par vehicles. To fix it, they'd need to do something extreme. Build a car with a hyper-focus on reliability and toss a 150,000 mile 10 year comprehensive warranty on it[3] (if it's built well, it'll cost them no more than it does today). If they take it to that extreme, they'll be believed by the industry press and the buyer.
[0] When people say "Buying American" they're usually referring to these guys, which is another way of saying UAW built cars. There's no car that I'm aware of that is built 100% in America with American parts and some vehicles from foreign brands have a larger percentage built in the United States (by non-union plants usually located in the South) than the equivalent in their categories from the big three.
[1] No, I'm not a union fan, but I also do not work in the automotive industry so, in general, I don't care.
[2] I don't have the exact number and I couldn't find it from a quick Google search. The counter to this is always "the foreign cars have import costs!" which is true, but so do the American brands (see point [0]) and in a lot of cases, the foreign brands offset that cost by assembling in American plants ... in the South ... that are non-unio...
Depending on the company, you want to be in their car. I noticed the Ford plant on Mound has a large sign "Ford Only Lot". My dad does business with all of them (and a few of the foreign plants down south, too). I don't know what the politics behind it are -- my Dad sells to all of them and a few of the southern foreign car plants -- he drives a Cadillac. I'll have to ask him if he gets crap for that when visiting Ford/Chrysler (which are large contracts for him).
The funny thing is, even they've changed a bit. My mom is in a Lexus hybrid, which shocked me. Their friends and neighbors passed away and owned the thing for three years with a few thousand miles on it. The family was willing to sell it to her at such a low price she couldn't pass it up. And it's a really nice car. Family circumstances also resulted in my dad getting an Audi TT convertible sports-toy which he stores up north (shh, don't tell anyone).
Has his glove box door fallen off yet?
Which is exactly what Hyundai did. They offer 10 year / 100k miles warranty. Contrary to the perception, their warranty gave me confidence to try it, and I've been happy with it so far.
Does this count as good reliability?
I only buy secondhand cars, and these are all things I've replaced, either myself or by mechanics. All these things will eventually wear out on a car, but replacing most of these parts is relatively straight forward, and I believe in expensive in comparison to the huge financial outlay require to purchase a new vehicle - in which we ought to include the depreciation as well as the running costs and maintenance.
My Ford vs Honda experience has been pretty similar. Great or Awful. I had a 2005 Odyessy and 2003 Pilot. Basically the same car, but the Odyssey was crap - literally had a door fall off.
Likewise, I had a Fusion and a 500/Taurus. The 500 had lots of stupid, expensive problems with trim, electronics, etc. The Fusion was flawless.
I think the thing that lead to Asian cars getting a good name was their switch to using all synthetic fluids in the late 1990's. You could buy a Nissan or Toyota and drive it for 8 year straight with no other maintenance other than oil changes and be just fine.
Do the same thing with an American car of that era and you will go through several stages. If you did nothing but change the oil, at the 5 year mark the car would be mostly destroyed. The conventional anti-freeze would have completely broken down at the 3 year mark and now your entire cooling system would be solid rust.
Your brakes will also be on the way out, as the normal DOT3 brake fluid absorbs water and after 5 years it will have become corrosive and it will be eating holes in your brake lines and brake pistons. The non synthetic power steering fluid will also be at the end of life and it will be destroying the seals in your steering rack.
And if its an automatic transmission, there is about 2 gallons of non synthetic transmission fluid in it that went bad 2 years ago and now the accelerated seal and metal wear is going to start clogging up the tiny fluid circuits so now one day your car will stay stuck in neutral... Oh and the engine will be running very rough more than likely too by now as the non-platinum sparks plugs are definitely wore out beyond use.
But if you change those fluids every 3 years or so, you are good for a few decades :)
Is your life that busy that you can't even find time once every three years to change the fluids yourself (or pay a shop to do it)?
Like the early 90's Ford Trucks with the straight 6, the Ranger, and the Crown Vic with the 4.6L V8. All discontinued, or the reliable engine replaced with something not as reliable.
For example, I'm taking issue with all BMW's costing $17,800 over 10 years on average. Yet, the BMW model with the highest maintenance cost, the 328i, only costs $15,600 over 10 years.
Edit: Tried, quite unsuccessfully, to improve clarity
The point is parts for imports here in the states are generally much higher.
If you have two sets of numbers, S and T, then I'm quite confident MEAN(S ∪ T) must fall between MIN(MEAN(S), MEAN(T)) and MAX(MEAN(S), MEAN(T)) inclusive.
In this case, the costs of maintenance for a given vehicle model are the sets and, so, the cost for a brand as a whole would be (S ∪ T ∪ V...).
Even mention ignition coils around some of them and there will be much cursing.
Maybe I got lucky, but you rarely hear people's good experiences, and you often hear the bad ones.
[0] For Americans, where Manual Transmission is much like the Big Foot. You hear about it, but nobody's actually seen it, this is a part of a Manual Transmission car that wears out over time and is guaranteed to require repair.
It's because the brand estimates are not based on actual costs, but only on oil changes:
“In order to estimate annual maintenance costs, we found the amount spent on every two oil changes (as oil changes are generally done every six months).”
Yet the actual oil change intervals for at least BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Volvo are between once a year and once every two years, or after between 7500 and 15000 miles, depending on the brand and model.
Repair data is used to set part prices, determine the TCO of a vehicle (similar this report shows). It is also used by the US government to mine the data for recalls.
The residual data from the newer breed of online repair sites (YourMechanic, Mitchell's & Motor's offering, etc.) is hugely valuable... and in no way is easy to get to.
The reason is that repair information (part #'s, labor costs, repair procedures, fluid levels, etc.) is extremely hard to digitize from 25 different manufacturers. No one uses a billing / estimating system unless is includes that data.
Where as say a Volkswagon owner may not bother to have the dealership spend 3 hours diagnosing a squeak or minor rough idle knowing they have to foot the bill?
Lexus is owned by Toyota. What makes it domestic?
Anecdotes.
There's something ironic about it. Here they got a car which "looks" like a reliable military vehicle, that you'd think could take it to some remove off-road location (desert, camping, etc). Yet as a brand, it is most likely to fail to start.
Guess that could be the reason why so much humvees have been given by the army to the police force recently thanks to the 1033 program.
Ouch. There's one more reason to laugh at people who bought the H3.
In summary, Japanese cars were deemed the most reliable and relatively cheap to maintain, while German cars were the least reliable according to the survey's respondents.
The rankings were calculated according to how often a car needed to be repaired, and the cost of the repairs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32332210
Each manufacturer produces a variety of models and the reliability of each model can vary by the year.
If you want to buy a car, look at the model-years in your price range and then research which of those is reliable or a lemon.
But the car with the lowest maintenance cost- the Toyota Prius, which had the full gas engine system PLUS an electric battery+motor, and the complexities managing the two together. Truly remarkable. Toyota should be really proud.
I do believe that, while Toyota should be commended on its engineering, the electric motor is actually beneficial to reduce wear and tear on the most expensive parts. This seems to be supported by the fact that are many other Toyota models in the low maintenance list, but only the Prius at the top.
The prius is pretty mature now too. And the "synergy" system is licensed to third parties. Nissan uses it on their hybrid models.
Disclaimer: Nissan Leaf owner. I am not expecting high maintenance bills either. The only thing that worries me is the weight of the vehicle and the crappy OEM tires it comes with.
It's all about performance relative to peak load! A power supply, like the one in your computer, performs much better over a longer life when it never crosses 80% peak load than one that is constantly above 80%.
Wut.
But sure, the toyota hybrid is an impressive piece of engineering.
I guess, though, when I think about the common repairs that car owners experience, "Engine Failure" is rarely one of them, so maybe that's one of the core reasons that having two engines doesn't affect things much, but the battery, which is a part that has a guaranteed wear associated scared me quite a bit.
Impressive for Toyota, for sure.
The design of the car places an upper boundary on reliability. Whether or not you hit that upper boundary is up to your manufacturing line.
As a Prius owner, I am also amused by the oft-repeated Tesla claim of 'All electric! Simpler system! Fewer repairs!' - given the many production defects they seem to have.
Those are not mutually exclusive. You can have fewer parts and a simpler system and yet a high number of failures. That just means they need to improve the manufacturing.
Another way to look at is: your Prius is not much more complicated than a "normal" car, as the EV portion adds so few parts ;)
And that's assuming Tesla really does have that many defects to begin with. Much like their accidents, could be biased reporting.
When talking about reliability, I don't care if it's reliable because it uses an ICE, or because it runs on rainbows and unicorn dust. I just care that it's reliable!
In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice, they're not.
Prius also gets a double bonus in that Toyota is oriented around selling low cost of ownership cars; higher upfront cost offset by lower maintenance costs and higher resale value. And because the Prius was their first hybrid vehicle they put extra effort to nail down the design.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
Atkinson drive: very efficient, but over a narrow speed and output range. Mechanical gear train: Inefficiencies in the high nineties. But gear ratios are fixed. Electric drive train: Not as efficient as a mechanical gear trains, but is efficient over a very wide speed range.
Add those up and you have a high efficiency mechanical power path through the planetary gear. And you use the electric power path to divert enough power from the engine to keep it running at it's most efficient. Because you have the electric power path you can cycle energy to and from the battery. Which gives you regenerative breaking, and allows you to stop the engine completely when you don't need power.
Genius!
You have options for non-oem battery packs that are less expensive, but you are going to have problems finding an independent shop who will work on it. Dealers won't work with non-oem parts, and most shops won't want to work on the HV electrical system in your hybrid. I haven't found a local independent shop who will work on the hybrid systems. You can do some work yourself, the companies that sell non-oem battery packs will tell you that you can. But you should definitely be comfortable working with HV electrical systems if you want to do it yourself.
Some independent shops will work on hybrid systems, I found a mechanic with a great reputation that I'm really happy with. He was literally half the price of some of the dealer quotes. But he's in an entirely different state. Independent shops that specialize in hybrids are hard to find.
Plus there are other systems involved with the hybrid, like the transmission, that I would assume would usually be a dealer repair. So I'm assuming this list isn't including the costs to repair the hybrid systems. I think those will usually be dealer repairs.