Korean Cars

[ffracer]

1. Consumer Reports only valuable for rating reliability long term becuase of owner data and lots of it. They are lousy at car reviews. All the recommend is reliable sofa on wheels. i.e. a Camry. The once rated the Lotus Elise as harsh riding and dangerous handling when the throttle is let off in hard cornering. Well, duh, that bad driving 101 - stupid in any car.

The Lotus is also one of the best handling cars sold on the market. So the review is driver error.

2. Their reviews may be good for certain Samsung and LG products, but look at the reliability ratings. Some are not good, some are good. They aren't across the board. Sony has been sinking quickly recently. So, no it no from "old days" Popinski.

3. The Cavalier with an automatic is very reliable. But it is a Cavalier with an automatic. A slow car that manages to be poor handling with a poor ride, build quality from the Soviet bloc years, plus it is an automatic, something I will never buy.

I'm not knocking Hyundai-Kia or GM-Daewoo, but neither has proven themselves in either driving performance and long term reliability, yet, but that may be just be a matter of time or not.

Some of their new cars have some very good attributes, but still need data to see if they last.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: sw99
I have yet to see a "Dealership" that sells Japanese and Korean vehicles together..


A large portion of the Suzuki lineup was Korean for a period of time. Forenza, Reno, Verona....all Daewoos.

And for the 5 or so years that Daewoo had dealerships in the US, it wasn't uncommon for the Daewoo dealership to be coupled with another. Isuzu here if I recall correctly.

Before Hyundai took control of Kia, there was a Pontiac/GMC/Isuzu/Kia dealer here. The lot is exclusively Kia now.

But I think you are right about Hyundai. I can't remember Hyundai sharing a lot with another marque. Vandergriff Hyundai and Vandergriff Toyota are next door to each other but do not share any facilities. Separate service, sales, parts and inventory.

 

[grampi]

Kelpie

Again, just because YOU'VE seen 300K Cavaliers doesn't mean they're all like that. Years of compiled reliability data says there are other makes that last longer and are more reliable...

sw99

My brother-in-law works at a Honda dealership, but he works only with the used car side, so he sees all makes. Also, I have consistently acknowledged increases in quality by the Koreans, I'm just not ready to jump on the Korean-makes-are-as-good-or-better-than-the-Japanese-makes bandwagon just yet....

 

[artificialist]

Plenty of cars get 300,000 miles out of an engine and transmission, but how much life out of electrical equipment, suspension components, smog gadgetry, and interior bits and pieces?

Also, when those pieces do fail, what does it take to replace them?

Just having an engine and transmission last that long doesn't show the full cost of the car.

This is why I prefer Honda cars.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
1. Consumer Reports only valuable for rating reliability long term becuase of owner data and lots of it. They are lousy at car reviews..

3. The Cavalier with an automatic is very reliable. But it is a Cavalier with an automatic. A slow car that manages to be poor handling with a poor ride, build quality from the Soviet bloc years.

I'm not knocking Hyundai-Kia or GM-Daewoo, but neither has proven themselves in either driving performance and long term reliability, yet, but that may be just be a matter of time or not.

Some of their new cars have some very good attributes, but still need data to see if they last.


This nearly killed me! Great Cavalier comments. And yes, it is a bit too soon to give the koreans the benefit of decades where the japanese EARNED our respect with great cars.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of cars get 300,000 miles out of an engine and transmission, but how much life out of electrical equipment, suspension components, smog gadgetry, and interior bits and pieces?

Also, when those pieces do fail, what does it take to replace them?

Just having an engine and transmission last that long doesn't show the full cost of the car.

This is why I prefer Honda cars.


That's one thing about the Krapaliers; the engines and transmissions may go 300K, but literally everything else about the car will be falling apart. My '99 Corolla has 263K and with the exception of one instrument panel light bulb, everything in and on this car still works...

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of cars get 300,000 miles out of an engine and transmission, but how much life out of electrical equipment, suspension components, smog gadgetry, and interior bits and pieces?

Also, when those pieces do fail, what does it take to replace them?

Just having an engine and transmission last that long doesn't show the full cost of the car.

This is why I prefer Honda cars.


That's one thing about the Krapaliers; the engines and transmissions may go 300K, but literally everything else about the car will be falling apart. My '99 Corolla has 263K and with the exception of one instrument panel light bulb, everything in and on this car still works...


I had 2 "krapaliers" and a neon, all 3 had everything working when I sold them and I had no issues with stuff falling apart. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe it was the fact that I didn't beat the snot out of them.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of cars get 300,000 miles out of an engine and transmission, but how much life out of electrical equipment, suspension components, smog gadgetry, and interior bits and pieces?

Also, when those pieces do fail, what does it take to replace them?

Just having an engine and transmission last that long doesn't show the full cost of the car.

This is why I prefer Honda cars.


That's one thing about the Krapaliers; the engines and transmissions may go 300K, but literally everything else about the car will be falling apart. My '99 Corolla has 263K and with the exception of one instrument panel light bulb, everything in and on this car still works...


I had 2 "krapaliers" and a neon, all 3 had everything working when I sold them and I had no issues with stuff falling apart. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe it was the fact that I didn't beat the snot out of them.


You were lucky. Those things are junk....

 

[wander2039]

In our family we have a few of first Kia's brought to the US. Granted they do have Ford on it with Mazda motors. Never have problems may it be the engine/trans or the body. My dad has 240k on one of his Festiva's and nothing but maintenance items. Granted I'll admit the Festiva's seem better built than the Aspire's in some areas. I'd buy a new Kia Optima or Hyundai Veloster in a heartbeat.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of cars get 300,000 miles out of an engine and transmission, but how much life out of electrical equipment, suspension components, smog gadgetry, and interior bits and pieces?

Also, when those pieces do fail, what does it take to replace them?

Just having an engine and transmission last that long doesn't show the full cost of the car.

This is why I prefer Honda cars.


That's one thing about the Krapaliers; the engines and transmissions may go 300K, but literally everything else about the car will be falling apart. My '99 Corolla has 263K and with the exception of one instrument panel light bulb, everything in and on this car still works...


I had 2 "krapaliers" and a neon, all 3 had everything working when I sold them and I had no issues with stuff falling apart. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe it was the fact that I didn't beat the snot out of them.


I had a 99 Grand Marquis for 200K miles and a 88 Town Car for over 300K miles..The inside of the Grand Marquis was like brand new with zero rattles and squeaks..A hurricane killed it in 2005 or I probably would still have now..The Town car was in excellent condition [in and out] at 300K miles..Everything worked in both cars till the end..Even the a/c was still ice cold in both of them..Neither of them had power window issues or any other electrical issues.

Besides regular maintenance that was it for both cars.

 

[mechanicx]

I don't know what Cavaliers some people are talking about. I've had experience with several Cavaliers and Sunfires and everything held up well and they rode better and quieter than Corollas and most comparable cars. Especially the '95+. I sometimes hear negative comments of '99+ N-car, Malibu, Grand Am, Alero but they were a great riding and handling car for their time and price range. Even today a '99-02' Grand Am or Alero V6 is a sweet driving car. Great brake feel, good steering weight, and spring and damper tuning. Some people can tear up anything and cast aspersions. I don't think they know what they're talking about.

 

[javacontour]

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. Check out my comparison of my mom's Cavalier with 30K on the clock to my '94 Geo Prizm with 240K on the clock.

http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthre...129#Post1562129

The Cavalier was a brutal drive compared to the Prizm. I'd driven the Prizm from St Louis, to Denver and back twice as well, so I know what a day with each car is like. The Cavalier was far more exhausting and annoying compared to the much older Prizm.

 

[grampi]

The Cavalier and Corolla are at opposite ends of the spectrum; the Corolla is a well built car...the Cavalier was built for the sole purpose of allowing Chevy to meet their overall fleet EPA MPG requirement and nothing more...and it's obvious....

 

[kb01]

I owned a '95 Cavalier for a few years before selling it to my nephew when I discovered how impractical a 2-door car was. I bought it in '98 with around 60 or 70,000 miles for next to nothing and sold it in 2000 with around 120,000.

It never gave me any problems when I owned it, felt very sturdy for an economy car, but not terribly memorable. When I bought it, I do remember looking at a few Corollas and Prisms, but to me, they just weren't worth paying 2x more for.

I replaced the Cavalier with a brand new 2000 Ford Focus SE, which was the most irritating vehicle I've ever owned.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. Check out my comparison of my mom's Cavalier with 30K on the clock to my '94 Geo Prizm with 240K on the clock.

http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthre...129#Post1562129

The Cavalier was a brutal drive compared to the Prizm. I'd driven the Prizm from St Louis, to Denver and back twice as well, so I know what a day with each car is like. The Cavalier was far more exhausting and annoying compared to the much older Prizm.


I've compared many J-cars to those Corollas. I completely disagree. The J-cars ride better.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: grampi
The Cavalier and Corolla are at opposite ends of the spectrum; the Corolla is a well built car...the Cavalier was built for the sole purpose of allowing Chevy to meet their overall fleet EPA MPG requirement and nothing more...and it's obvious....


Pure nonsense.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. Check out my comparison of my mom's Cavalier with 30K on the clock to my '94 Geo Prizm with 240K on the clock.

http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthre...129#Post1562129

The Cavalier was a brutal drive compared to the Prizm. I'd driven the Prizm from St Louis, to Denver and back twice as well, so I know what a day with each car is like. The Cavalier was far more exhausting and annoying compared to the much older Prizm.


I've compared many J-cars to those Corollas. I completely disagree. The J-cars ride better.


Define better? They both in general were right in the middle with respect to ride. The J-body maybe a bit softer, but neither was a Rolls Royce ride. Besides, a soft ride is not universally deemed better.

While neither is a sports car, the 94 Corolla was still 4 wheel independent suspension, while the J-body used the beam axle in the rear. I found the Prizm to handle road imperfections better, and was more nimble handling than the J-Body.

I've driven them both on long trips, and the J-Body wears you out relative to the Prizm I owned until it had 254K miles on the ticker.

If you like/liked yours, then great. I had a different experience.

But in the end, both are appliance cars. I think the only reason the Corolla will be remembered is because it's become the worlds top selling car, passing even the VW Beetle, IIRC.

 

[kb01]

How did the car wear you out? No cruise control, out of alignment...?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: kb01
How did the car wear you out? No cruise control, out of alignment...?


Just tiring to drive any great distance. I know what he means. I've had a few J-bodies as rentals and I hated them for that, and a plethora of other reasons that any economy car can be criticized for including the Corolla (which I hated equally as much as the Cavalier).

By far the best vehicles I've owned for long-distance drives have been the Expedition, Town Car and M5. I've sat in all three for 14+hrs and still didn't feel drained at the end of the trip. The Mustang was more of a chore. Civic was dreadful, so was the J-body. They rode more harshly, responded to road imperfections more, requiring more correction of the wheel, which keeps you more tense, and wears you out quicker. And they get blown all over the road when you go near a transport truck or encounter east-coast winds.

That is what I think he's getting at.

 

[mechanicx]

Neither car is a Cadillac or even a midsize but he was suggesting the the Corolla was a better highway cruiser and more comfortable. I think it is just the opposite. The J-cars have a longer wheelbase and are slightly heavier and bigger. The Ecotec and 4T40 transmission is a great powertrain. To say that engine is noisy and harsh is just wacky talk. the 1.8 in the Corolla is a small buzzy engine.