The Prius has no clothes

[roo_ster]

These days the differences in longevity between the major auto manufacturers (major: not Korean, French, Italian, or Slobovian) is not worth worrying about.  After owning a 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix Broughm, with a 4.3L V8 (less power with the added benefit of crappy milage) I swore off 'merican cars.  Today, if Detroit made something I liked, I'd buy (compact pickup with a turbo-deisel, please).

Yep, Hondas last longer than Toyotas (studies show that Honda buyers generally take better care of their autos than Toyota owners).

Toyotas last longer than Fords (studies show that Toyota buyers generally take better care of their autos than Ford owners).

Fords last longer than...well you probably detect the pattern here.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

jfruser,

These days the differences in longevity between the major auto manufacturers (major: not Korean, French, Italian, or Slobovian) is not worth worrying about.

I'm inclined to remove Korean from that list.  Kia and Hyundai are both putting out some very solid offerings, at or near the quality of Nissan, Toyota and others.  Also, their warranties are both stellar.

They both started out selling cheap junk, sorta like the Toyotas of the early/mid '70's, and like Toyota, have both come a loooong way since they entered the US market.

[brimic]

I don't know that a Ford Taurus (or any Ford for that matter) will go 180,000 miles without some major work.   I've owned 5 Fords, and they all needed several thousand dollars worth of repairs before 125k.   Toyotas, if maintained, will go 300,000 miles before they're scrap.

Well ok you got me there. My Bil has a taurus with over 200,000 miles, but it might be more of a fluke than an accurate representation of the model. I just picked Ford Taurus'  because they are ubiquitous. The last ford I owned and ever will own seized up with 110,000 miles on it.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I dunno....I tend to drive everything until it dies...completely.  My '84 Accord had 250,000 miles on it when I delivered it up for crushing.  SWMBO's Burb has just under 200,000 miles on it, and my '97 Zook is getting close to 150,000 miles, and it just had its first clutch replacement.  

Maintenance is the key.


Of course, it also means my Scot roots are showing. I really like having no car payment, too.

The lowest mileage vehicle I own is a 1969 Ford pickup with a mere 75,000 miles.   I'm still working on the details to convert the Burb to a diesel-electric direct drive if it ever harfs the engine.

...and yes, they all pass the tough Dallas county annual emissions testing.  Maintenance pays off.

[cfabe]

Any modern vehicle (1990+ or so) that is properly maintained and has no significant design flaws (and there are some that do) should have a service life of 150-200k miles, or more. Automatic transmission failure is the big failure that gets otherwise good cars to the junkyard, just because they are poorly maintained and expensive to rebuild.

My dad drove a 97 ford taurus, which has a notoriouslly crappy transmission, to 150k miles before it started slipping and needed a rebuild. He had the fluid and filter changed every 30k and power flushed every 60k. We also had a 91 Escort that just got regular oil changes and timing belts that ultimatly met its demise by a poorly placed fire hydrant at 160k miles, just after it's first clutch replacement. The engine was just starting to get a little tired and have a tinge of oil smoke on hard acceleration.  Also a 93 Chevy Lumina APV van that did 180k on the stock transmission, with only one fluid/filter changes in there around 150; a testament to GM's automatic transmissions.

It really is all in the maintainence. And on newer cars, there's really not even much to do in terms of maintainence any more. Regular oil changes, auto trans service, fuel filters occasionally to keep the fuel pump from dying, and spark plugs and ignition wires at 60-100k depending on vehicle.

[mfree]

Ok, so here's my vehicular history:

1. 1978 Lincoln Mk V. 278,000 miles when sacrificed to: mold. The interior was becoming uninhabitable. After that it sat in the driveway for 4 years becoming even more uninhabitable. When my cousing took it away, it needed: A capful of gas down the carb and a jump start. During it's service life it needed: A valve job and a set of rear calipers.

2. 1984 Thunderbird V6. offered for sacrifice at 192,000 miles. Failures: My own, for not realizing it was badly, badly abused when I bought it. Engine toasted at 95,000 miles and was *full* of coke. Not sludge, but hard-packed crispy oil coke. Apparently it never had an oil change in the first 60,000 miles. Tranny bought it shortly thereafter (110,000), again, factory fluid. $1000 engine and $800 transmission, btw. After that, no real issues until the $800 transmission chewed up a bearing or five, and I parked it. Was just too expensive to upkeep on a collegelife salary... 22mpg and pricey tires on my aftermarket wheels.

3. 1991 dodge shadow. Still have it @ 140,000 or so, odo's broken. This is the car that won't QUIT. The grand sum total of parts required to actually keep it running amount to a $10 head gasket and a $20 water pump, and if you count such things a $20 engine mount set. It's still on the factory clutch despite the last 50,000 miles of it's life being served as a runabout/thrasher/rallycross car. Popped the headgasket at 90K again due to previous owner abuse, made it 70m home, changed the gasket myself and no engine damage noted. Just a simple workhorse of a car. Downside: 24mpg, due to some inventive emission controls work after an engine fire. Again, my fault.

4. 2001 Daewoo Leganza. 96,000 miles, gone to the big wrecking yard in the sky. Ran like brand new, too. 30mpg on a bad day, 32mpg if I worked at it. Work history: required a $35 sensor at 50K, and a $400 trip to the dealer for an oil seal and a set of parking brake shoes. (uhm, don't play with the lever at speed, the parking brake really *can't* take it). Took a 65mph pirouette into the I-40 center divider and totalled. Only major defect was the home company's management and GM's involvement, it seems.

So yeah, a little elbow grease and smart repairs and anything will last a while, as long as you also toss in preventative maintenance and scheduled fluid changes.

[Silver Bullet]

(uhm, don't play with the lever at speed, the parking brake really *can't* take it). Took a 65mph pirouette into the I-40 center divider and totalled.

Have you been watching Rockford Files ?  

[grampster]

I've got an '02 Nissan Frontier, 4d, 4x4.  It's sortof an underpowered V-6,  but other than that, just front brake pads and oil and filter.  It's got 70,000 on it and performs very well.  Bad gas mileage, though.  17 mpg on the hiway.

If Nissan would produce this truck in a turbo diesel, I'd go on the hook for the cost.

[Paddy]

FWIW, I've always been diligent about maintenance on my vehicles.  Oil changes every 3-5k miles, new air and fuel filters at recommended intervals, transmission fluid changes every 30k, etc.   When something is worn or breaks, I fix or replace it right away.  And no 'shade tree' mechanics, either, I usually go to the dealer and pay the extra bucks for the knowledge and the right parts.

I have high expectations for my vehicles.  They need to function 100% all the time.  I won't put up with crap that isn't reliable.

Some of the best cars I've owned have been foreign.  1965 VW Bug, 1973 Opel Manta, 1980 Toyota Corolla, 1983 Toyota pickup, 1985 Chev Sprint (Isuzu, I think. 3 cylinder 5 speed).  I even had a Fiat Bianchini in high school.  For some reason, I developed a prejudice against foreign cars and began buying Fords beginning in 1988 with a Ford Tempo.  I still have a 2003 Ford Ranger 4x4.  In only 25k miles, it has needed a transaxle seal, a fuel pump replacement (leaking) and new tires.  The a/c still stinks even though the dealer 'cleaned' it under warranty.  I wonder if some auto worder left his sandwich in there.

Every one of the Fords needed some major work before 100k. Everything from oil leaks to water pumps.  One Contour needed a new trans at 96k.  I sold the last Contour and bought a 2005 Toyota Echo, which reliably gets 40+ mpg.  I'm 59 now, so I don't plan on ever buying another car.  There should be enough miles left between the Ranger and the Echo to take me to the point where I quit driving in 15 or so years.

[mfree]

haha, whoops! No, the parking brake playtime and the wild spinning were totally unrelated items

I popped a tire in standing water going down the highway... if there's ever an unrecoverable spin I'd say it's that one.

And FWIW, the Sprints/Metros are Suzuki Swifts. GM's had a really odd lot of foreign marques marching through the ranks and deals with everyone... Isuzu, Suzuki, Toyota for the Geo Prizm for the longest time, then you've got the purchase of Daewoo and the divvying of vehicles up amongst divisions (the Chevy Aveo and Canadian Chevy Epica, and Suzukis Verona, Forenza, and Reno are all 100% Daewoo)... Opel and Holden engines finding their ways around, the Holden chassis for the Pontiac GTO (technically pure GM though, divisions those)... let's see. Ah, right, Honda's V6 sitting in a few Saturn VUEs. Don't forget Honda borrowing Isuzu's Rodeo to use as the Passport. GM had used Daewoo in the past too, the Pontiac Lemans was a Daewoo Racer in goat's clothing, that one was still sold up till recently in the Caribbean region.

The lines are truly blurred, gentlemen. Ford did it too, in fact, the escort and ZX2's really aren't that much Ford as Mazda, Contours/Mystique/late Cougar sourced from europe, and wow, what engines are in * Rovers now, BMW, Volvo, BME, or Ford? The new 500 is a Volvo platform, isn't it?

Mitsubishi engines everywhere, too, particularly in Chryslers and old Hyundais... that wonderful Hyundai Excel everyone likes to bluster about as well as anything up to about 1996 had motors made by Mitsubishi in Mitsu plants (and the excel was actually the Mitsu Precis anyways). Chrysler's 2.6 fours and the 3.0 V6 were Mitsu engines. Chrysler liked to outsource motors too, don't forget that the omni was (in strange coincidence, since everyone thinks it was modelled after the golf when in actuality the Omni came first in France under the Talbot marque) fitted with VW 1.7 engines and later PEUGEOT 1.6 liters. Peugeot! Jeep got lots of switchers too, AMC 2.5 and 4.0/4.2's as well as GM's 2.5 and the 2.8 V6.

there's never a clearcut case of "X sucks" anymore because you could very well be talking about some other manufacturer's part failing. Transmissions by Aisin, Getrag, etc.; electronics by Lucas or Denso.... companies involved that don't make anything else.

[Paddy]

Yeah, I think my Contour was hecho en mexico.

[Silver Bullet]

there's never a clearcut case of "X sucks" anymore because you could very well be talking about some other manufacturer's part failing

I'll still blame the manufacturer that sold the car to me.  They're responsible for a quality vehicle made up of quality parts, regardless of whether they manufacture it themselves or oursource it.

[atek3]

Also correct. And the land is already in production. American farmers are wonderfully efficient. So efficient, in fact, that it is cheaper for the govt to pay them to put land into CRP (non-production standby) than it is for the govt to figure out what to do with the surplus commodities that just sit around and spoil. And that's AFTER we've shipped a couple hundred million tons overseas for sale and for humanitarian relief efforts.

All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.

That is totally crazy.  If American farmers are "wonderfully efficient", we wouldn't need a roughly ~16 billion agriculture subsidy program.  Our farm system is 'so efficient' we throw money away paying farmers NOT to grow?  The only time you have 'surplus commodities' is when the government sets a price floor above what people are willing to pay.  Then the "surplus commodities" have to be foisted onto people with WIC, public school lunches, food stamps, and 'humanitarian aid'.  

All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.

'Mom and pop farm'?  What century are you living in?  Maybe we should go back to "mom and pop automobile manufacturing" or "mom and pop oil refining".  Farming is another productive task that has strong economies of scale, trying to go back to 'mom and pop' is optimistic at best.

atek3

[roo_ster]

That is totally crazy.  If American farmers are "wonderfully efficient", we wouldn't need a roughly ~16 billion agriculture subsidy program.  Our farm system is 'so efficient' we throw money away paying farmers NOT to grow?

That is totally politics.  Yep, our agriculture sector is crazy-productive.  For political reasons, we limit our farmers' production.  If we didn't, there'd be so dang much produced, we'd pay a whole lot less for food and the ag sectors of virtually every other country would be wiped out or their gov't's would enact even more barriers to our ag goods.

[atek3]

That is totally politics.  Yep, our agriculture sector is crazy-productive.  For political reasons, we limit our farmers' production.  If we didn't, there'd be so dang much produced, we'd pay a whole lot less for food and the ag sectors of virtually every other country would be wiped out or their gov't's would enact even more barriers to our ag goods.

Now apply that logic to any other sector.  Do we limit the production of cars to stop car surpluses or coal to stop coal surpluses?  What makes agriculture so special if we don't apply government power to "rein it in" it would just wipe itself out.  That's the silliest argument I've heard all week.  If American farmers are SO productive why do we ban or heavily tax foreign produce?  After all if we're SOproductive they obviously couldn't compete on price.  

we'd pay a whole lot less for food

you say that like it's a bad thing.

If we allowed the market to work in agriculture, AS IT DOES IN EVERY OTHER SECTOR, prices would fall, inefficient producers would go out of business, and the consumer would win.  Unfortunately, the consumer doesn't have a lobbying arm as strong as the farmers.  Hence we get a 1.5 billion dollar farm subsidy package that totally soaks taxpayers and rewards the biggest agribusinesses.

atek3

[brimic]

1984 Thunderbird V6. offered for sacrifice at 192,000 miles. Failures: My own, for not realizing it was badly, badly abused when I bought it. Engine toasted at 95,000 miles and was *full* of coke

My bad ford experience was with a '86 t-bird. 3.8 l v-6. bought it with 12,000 miles on it. Maintained it very religeously, never went more than 3000 miles without an oil change, air filter changed every 15,, etc, etc. At 60,000 miles it started burning oil real bad. Took it to a ford garage, where they ran compression and cylinder leakdown tests. Mechanic told me that there was 24% difference between the best and worst cylinder. He told me that 10-15% tolerance from the factory at that time was typical, and I probably had sticking rings making the problem worse. It ran another 50,000 miles and burned countless quarts of oil- about a quart every 500 miles.One cold january day, I tried starting it, it turned over about halfway and never ran again. Took it to the shop and they told me it was seized up tight with a worn out crank bearing.

At the same time, my dad had a '84 Bronco full sized, 302, C4 tranny. The truck never really ran right. It was very difficult to start, after a year it seemed t lack power. Dad took it in to the Ford Garage and they found that a intake manifold bolt had not been installed at the factory. They replaced the intake manifold as the rest of the bolts weren't properly torqued either and the manifold was warped/not sealing correctly.It was a real nice looking truck but Dad sold it right after that episode and hasn't bought anything but Chevy trucks since.  

This was after I had previously owned a '76 oldsmobile Cutass that had 100,000 miles on it and I ran it another 150,000 miles with the only repairs being a rebuilt tranny, brakes and tires. A girl I went to school with had a '73 that was pushing 300,000 miles, Oldsmobile used to build a bulletproof and very smooth V-8.

Current vehicle a nissan pickup, bought it used with 9,000 miles, currently has 170,000+ miles on it and still runs strong.
I have no urge whatsoever to ever consider buying another Ford.