Hondas, Toyotas and the brainwashed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
High mileage modern cars just aren't uncommon with the right usage profile. That applies to most manufacturers.


I agree but the costs along the way.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: stockrex

Now, service and reliability is another thing, everything breaks!


My inlaws had a 1999 CRV drove it 300,000km before it needed anything. (Exception: Oxygen Sensors)

They have a 2009 CRV and so far nothing at all put into it and it's almost 1/2 way to this same point.

My Santa Fe was 300K Miles (535,000km) and only saw alternator, starter, Oxygen sensors and wearable parts like brakes/tires. That's it.

My Mom's 2004 Kia Spectra had only oxygen sensors done to it in 300,000km (180K Miles)

My 2015 Journey with 80,000km (50K Miles) has had 5 safety recalls, blew the alternator in Florida, had the lamp in the second row melt and almost catch on fire, has had numerous problems with the factory remote starter, has had the O2 sensor, coolant sensor and thermostats (has 2 of them) replaced oh and intermittent problems with the A/C and the Bluetooth not connecting which they can't seem to solve.



Well I've had good luck with GM/Chrysler and bad luck with Japanese marques. It happens and I don't pollute every thread with them.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Yes, EVERY thread. Please provide links to EVERY thread.

It came up, I stated my experience. That's all.

33.gif



Love having you back, didn't miss the GM bashing and Hyundai fanboyism!
grin2.gif
 
I never bashed them, I only spoke about experiences. People took it the wrong way. I personally would not buy a GM after the terrible products they put out that I got to service with my dad first hand. That has warped my perception of them. I also suspect this lead to them needing bailouts and corporate welfare to make them solvent again when other brands did not. There are certain models I would consider where they got it right like the 3800 series engines (certain years) or the good old 4.3 V6's. Heavy gas guzzling beasts but lasted forever. I also wouldn't buy most German cars because I think they are over priced service nightmares waiting to happen. Ford I'm ok with most stuff. Chrysler is a pile of **** with the exception of some models like Jeep, or the Pentastar V6 and World Gas / Tiger Shark Engines. It's just too bad that the rest of the vehicles around them need a lot of help. (My dad used to work for Chrysler as well so that should count)

Hyundai has always been a great brand to me and their sister company Kia has always been good to my other family members. Again experiences I have had that have changed my perception. Their ever increasing market share and quality awards should be proof enough I might be on to something here. Sure they have had their woes like with the GDI/TGDI engines but what manufacturer doesn't. But at least the majority of their product line isn't a problem like other manufacturers and at least they are fixing the problems instead of trying to sweep it under the rug like other manufacturers often times do until they can't deny it any further and have to do something about it.

How is that any different than anyone else on here picking their brand of choice because of the same reasons listed above?

Folks can choose to listen or not and can agree or not. It's not bashing it's what I have seen. It just rubs some folks the wrong way because no one wants to admit that their beloved brand might not be the superior brand they hold in their minds and so they take it as an attack and call it bashing. I never said your brand sucks and you should only buy "X" brand. I just listed experiences I have had and why I would steer clear of certain things. Plus that was 7 years ago largely when vehicles were 7 years or older then. There were a lot of horrible vehicles on the road. Eg: GM's infamous intake gaskets. Piston slap in some other vehicles and fuel dilution issues in others.
wink.gif


In case you hadn't noticed I'm driving a terrible a vehicle that I will never buy again but I gave them a shot right after my Santa Fe had been nothing short of stellar with it's 300K Miles (535,000km's) with virtually nothing done other than wearable parts. I did so because it was the right price with discounts I could apply otherwise I would have gone back to Hyundai and ended up with most likely a Tuscon or Santa Fe.

cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
It's quite amazing reading the negative comments about bailouts and government money in NA. Ignorance truly is bliss. Please read up on other countries. Korea was mentioned already, so check out Japan and Germany and you will find that they too support their home industries and give them lots of money, China is no different. This is nothing new, but of course it is always conveniently not mentioned when it comes to the beloved Japanese brands.

I never support blind loyalty, but globalization is nothing more than a race to the bottom and it seems that lots of supporters of this trend do it blindly.
 
^^^^

Subsidies for automakers in other countries isn't new news.

The point I was making, is that Ford made a BIG DEAL (especially in their advertising), over the fact that they didn't receive government money under TARP, and Chrysler and GM did.

While conveniently not mentioning they did in fact also receive Billions in taxpayer funded loans, just under what boils down to a different loan name.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard from some Ford loyalist that the reason they buy Fords, is solely because they didn't accept TARP money. When it's pointed out to them that Ford has in fact accepted government money, they are usually indignant.

I'm just interested in laying all the facts on the table.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
^^^^

Subsidies for automakers in other countries isn't new news.

The point I was making, is that Ford made a BIG DEAL (especially in their advertising), over the fact that they didn't receive government money under TARP, and Chrysler and GM did.

While conveniently not mentioning they did in fact also receive Billions in taxpayer funded loans, just under what boils down to a different loan name.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard from some Ford loyalist that the reason they buy Fords, is solely because they didn't accept TARP money. When it's pointed out to them that Ford has in fact accepted government money, they are usually indignant.

I'm just interested in laying all the facts on the table.


When you do this, just make sure you are actually laying all the facts on the table.

The ATVM loan consisted of $25 billion set aside as a manufacturing investment in the US, was available to all manufacturers and must be fully repaid.

The bailout is very much different.
The Federal government taking ownership of a failed private business, artificially propping it up and loosing billions in the process is simply a bad practice.

Attempting to portray the two as comparable is either disingenuous or reveals major ignorance of the particulars, you are simply drawing a false equivalence.
 
There's a huge difference between a loan (what Ford, Nissan, and others got under that program) and taking ownership of a company.

The US Government basically bought GM and Chrysler. They foisted Chrysler on FCA and now it looks like FCA is looking to dump them or maybe they will cease to exist. They held on to GM and sold it back off once the finances were better. Whether or not they made money on the deal is debatable but I think most say the costs were negligible.

Ford got a break by mortgaging everything right before the collapse so they didn't need any money. And they are still controlled by the Ford family and had the been bailed out that control would have gone away. Obviously they didn't want that.
 
Originally Posted By: stockrex


Now, service and reliability is another thing, everything breaks!


It seems with modern vehicles, many of the main components such as engines, transmissions, axles, etc are fine, it is the electrical stuff. I've talked to a few shops in the area and they say the same thing. They've seen cars totaled because of electrical problems.

One shop owner told me that he would say the frequency of automotive problems has gone down, but the technical difficultly has gone way up. He said computer diagnostics help immensely with electrical faults, but they don't compensate for poor quality electrical wires and components, which they are seeing more and more of.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: 02SE
^^^^

Subsidies for automakers in other countries isn't new news.

The point I was making, is that Ford made a BIG DEAL (especially in their advertising), over the fact that they didn't receive government money under TARP, and Chrysler and GM did.

While conveniently not mentioning they did in fact also receive Billions in taxpayer funded loans, just under what boils down to a different loan name.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard from some Ford loyalist that the reason they buy Fords, is solely because they didn't accept TARP money. When it's pointed out to them that Ford has in fact accepted government money, they are usually indignant.

I'm just interested in laying all the facts on the table.


When you do this, just make sure you are actually laying all the facts on the table.

The ATVM loan consisted of $25 billion set aside as a manufacturing investment in the US, was available to all manufacturers and must be fully repaid.

The bailout is very much different.
The Federal government taking ownership of a failed private business, artificially propping it up and loosing billions in the process is simply a bad practice.

Attempting to portray the two as comparable is either disingenuous or reveals major ignorance of the particulars, you are simply drawing a false equivalence.


As I said, they get indignant when told that Ford also accepted Government loan money..
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: 02SE
^^^^

Subsidies for automakers in other countries isn't new news.

The point I was making, is that Ford made a BIG DEAL (especially in their advertising), over the fact that they didn't receive government money under TARP, and Chrysler and GM did.

While conveniently not mentioning they did in fact also receive Billions in taxpayer funded loans, just under what boils down to a different loan name.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard from some Ford loyalist that the reason they buy Fords, is solely because they didn't accept TARP money. When it's pointed out to them that Ford has in fact accepted government money, they are usually indignant.

I'm just interested in laying all the facts on the table.


When you do this, just make sure you are actually laying all the facts on the table.

The ATVM loan consisted of $25 billion set aside as a manufacturing investment in the US, was available to all manufacturers and must be fully repaid.

The bailout is very much different.
The Federal government taking ownership of a failed private business, artificially propping it up and loosing billions in the process is simply a bad practice.

Attempting to portray the two as comparable is either disingenuous or reveals major ignorance of the particulars, you are simply drawing a false equivalence.


As I said, they get indignant when told that Ford also accepted Government loan money..


I believe throwing around the term "government loan money" in regards to Ford is implying false equivilance with the bailout.
 
This could keep going around and around endlessly, but it's a waste of time at this point. It has been acknowledged that Ford DID take a Government loan. Albeit under different circumstances than TARP.

In their advertising at the time, they didn't mention that distinction. Ford just said they didn't take Government money. And reaped the windfall of sales based on that disingenuous statement.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 02SE
This could keep going around and around endlessly, but it's a waste of time at this point. It has been acknowledged that Ford DID take a Government loan. Albeit under different circumstances than TARP.

In their advertising at the time, they didn't mention that distinction. Ford just said they didn't take Government money. And reaped the windfall of sales based on that disingenuous statement.

I doubt that most people for whom this matters cared much about the money or the exact details of the transaction. They cared more about their perception of the closeness of the government deal makers, the organizations that were most helped by the deal, and the level of cronyism that was displayed.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: StevieC

Further last I checked those "Foreign" manufacturers are employing people in factories here.

I'm going to stop here.

cheers3.gif



Yup.

Toyota = factories in USA
Honda = factories in USA
BMW = factories in USA
Mercedes-Benz = factories in the USA



That's overly simplistic.
Assembly is just one part of the automotive manufacturing process.

Where was the R&D money spent, where do profits go, where are the majority of taxes paid?

There is zero doubt that US-based manufacturers spend exponentially more R&D money in the US, the last time I checked (which has been several years) Ford and GM were only outspent by Pfizer in US-based R&D.
There are billions upon billions of dollars beings spent in the auto industry that has little to do with actually bolting the cars together.


Gotta throw the flag on this.
Figures lie and liars figure.
If GM and Ford really spent that kind of coin on R&D, they'd have a world-class product or two on offer.
They don't.
For my money, Honda employs more Ohioans than does either GM or Ford, so I feel that I'm doing more to support employment in my part of the world buying an Accord than anything GM, Ford or FCA.
We've had five made in Ohio Accords and have been happy with all of them.
 
Honda & Toyota are here in Ontario and they are some of the largest employers in the country turning out quality products. We also have Ford/GM/Chrysler While GM/Chrysler/Ford keep downsizing Honda/Toyota keep expanding.

Ford is hanging on with it's last plant that produces models like the F-150 and certain Lincoln models.
Chrysler produces some of the V8 cars here and all the Dodge Caravans and
GM keeps changing their mind on what is being produced here and how many folks it's laying off this week so I can't list it all.
frown.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Whether or not they made money on the deal is debatable but I think most say the costs were negligible.


The GM bailout was a $9.3 billion loss.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/12/30/auto-bailout-tarp-gm-chrysler/21061251/


I'd say that overall it was a win for the economy. They made money on some things and lost on others, but overall the loss was small compared to a potential 105 billion loss had they just done nothing. Taking in the big picture is also important. They probably could have broken even had they held onto those shares longer, but neither party liked the idea of being known as Government motors so I think they sold too early from political pressure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rstcso
Small SUV needed; advice?
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
3K
HemiBenny
J
2025 Honda Pilot
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
JWC86
ChrisMU
My new (to me) 2020 Toyota Avalon Limited
Replies
9
Views
543
jsean
A
200k report 2018 Tiguan
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
SOUNDMAN5000
raaizin
new VW Tiguan SE R Line Black 4 Motion/ Honda CRV Hybrid
Replies
15
Views
3K
Sj08
Back
Top Bottom