Why Do Foreign Cars Hold There Value
- Thread starter c3po
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: rationull
Interesting. Until now I actually didn't know the Prelude went back that far.
My dad had an '83 Civic that also ended up smoking pretty bad, but I think it got up to 180k miles or so before it was retired. We also had a couple domestics (one Ford and one Chevy) that ended up as smokers at the end of their lives.
I don't really see many newer smokers at all so I assume better fuel injection and emissions equipment is helping all makes with that issue. Or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
Newer smokers:
Caravans
Intrepids
Caddy's with the Northstar
Those are the ones I've seen the most of.
You can add to that list the Mitsubishi's that have the same engines as the Caravans, the 3.0L V6.
I also see a number of Fords that probably have the earliest modular V8's that produce that puff of smoke accelerating from a stop.
No newer ones, but probably the first year or two of that engine.
Now if you find an early Chevy Vega, now we are talking real smoke. It would make these others look like amateurs.
Originally Posted By: rationull
Interesting. Until now I actually didn't know the Prelude went back that far.
My dad had an '83 Civic that also ended up smoking pretty bad, but I think it got up to 180k miles or so before it was retired. We also had a couple domestics (one Ford and one Chevy) that ended up as smokers at the end of their lives.
I don't really see many newer smokers at all so I assume better fuel injection and emissions equipment is helping all makes with that issue. Or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
Newer smokers:
Caravans
Intrepids
Caddy's with the Northstar
Those are the ones I've seen the most of.
You can add to that list the Mitsubishi's that have the same engines as the Caravans, the 3.0L V6.
I also see a number of Fords that probably have the earliest modular V8's that produce that puff of smoke accelerating from a stop.
No newer ones, but probably the first year or two of that engine.
Now if you find an early Chevy Vega, now we are talking real smoke. It would make these others look like amateurs.
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
It sounds to me like you are cherry picking anecdotal evidence to support your bias against the marque.
What? Me, biased? Whatever gave you that idea
?
Seriously, I thought it was perfectly fair to endlessly criticize manufacturers for the junk they made thirty years ago, and completely reject the idea that they could have ever made any progress since.
It sounds to me like you are cherry picking anecdotal evidence to support your bias against the marque.
What? Me, biased? Whatever gave you that idea
Seriously, I thought it was perfectly fair to endlessly criticize manufacturers for the junk they made thirty years ago, and completely reject the idea that they could have ever made any progress since.
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
I constantly see 8-12+ year old Civics that smoke. Of course, they are owned by kids and women, people who are obviously doing little, if any, maintenance on the car. The cars I'm talking about are also banged up and often filled with clutter to the point of nausea. Clear signs of neglect and even outright abuse.
That's all well and good, but you'd think those people would drive other makes/models and neglect those as well, and they'd start smoking too.
But that doesn't seem to happen nearly as often with other makes/models.
Are Honda Civics perhaps not tolerant of lax maintenance to the degree that other models are?
I constantly see 8-12+ year old Civics that smoke. Of course, they are owned by kids and women, people who are obviously doing little, if any, maintenance on the car. The cars I'm talking about are also banged up and often filled with clutter to the point of nausea. Clear signs of neglect and even outright abuse.
That's all well and good, but you'd think those people would drive other makes/models and neglect those as well, and they'd start smoking too.
But that doesn't seem to happen nearly as often with other makes/models.
Are Honda Civics perhaps not tolerant of lax maintenance to the degree that other models are?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'd just like to point out that the fact that a car has a big following does not mean the car is good, nor does it mean the company is good at building cars. It just means the car is at least decent, and easily accessible.
Most generations of Mustang are [censored]. I'm sorry, but it's true. They are fun in a straight line on a dry road, cheap to buy, (usually) cheap to maintain, and VERY easy to make fast, but ultimately they are primitive machines that are nothing truly special to drive -- i.e. they give you nothing you couldn't get from another car that is better in other ways.
Other examples of popular-does-not-mean-good: Liberty, Escape/Mariner, PT Cruiser, Caliber, H2, etc.
The Mustang exudes a certain "feel" that draws people to it. They are fun, simple, fast, VERY easy to make faster, and reliable.
Fox body Mustangs had horrendous suspension. The Mustang II; Pinto based was an abomination. The SN95 was much better. The S197 is better still.
But the feeling you get in a Fox, when driving, is rivalled by few other vehicles. Anybody who's owned a V8 Fox likely knows what I'm talking about.
A car does not have to be "superior" in every class to be a good car. Making it FUN makes it attractive to people. And they ARE.
I have a friend with a 525RWHP 91 Fox notch. I've never been in another car that has felt as scary, yet fun, at the same time.
It's a feeling, that, unless you've experienced it, you simply won't understand it, so there's no way I can properly explain it. The fact of the matter is though, that there are a LOT of people out there who can relate, and it's why the cars continue to sell, why they have the following they do, and why they have their own racing league (NMRA).
I would not put any of the other vehicles you cited as being in the same class or popularity category as the Mustang. Not even CLOSE. The closest I can think of would be the GM F-body guys or the Civic.
I agree with the feeling you get driving a Fox body. It's not so much something you can put into words. My GN is a truly unique experience too. To me, these cars have something special. Some of their shortcomings are what give them character. My TL, while nice and reliable will never have the soul that the older American cars have. To me, it's just a machine to get me from point A to point B. But if I have a bad day, I can hop in the GN and forget about my problems.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'd just like to point out that the fact that a car has a big following does not mean the car is good, nor does it mean the company is good at building cars. It just means the car is at least decent, and easily accessible.
Most generations of Mustang are [censored]. I'm sorry, but it's true. They are fun in a straight line on a dry road, cheap to buy, (usually) cheap to maintain, and VERY easy to make fast, but ultimately they are primitive machines that are nothing truly special to drive -- i.e. they give you nothing you couldn't get from another car that is better in other ways.
Other examples of popular-does-not-mean-good: Liberty, Escape/Mariner, PT Cruiser, Caliber, H2, etc.
The Mustang exudes a certain "feel" that draws people to it. They are fun, simple, fast, VERY easy to make faster, and reliable.
Fox body Mustangs had horrendous suspension. The Mustang II; Pinto based was an abomination. The SN95 was much better. The S197 is better still.
But the feeling you get in a Fox, when driving, is rivalled by few other vehicles. Anybody who's owned a V8 Fox likely knows what I'm talking about.
A car does not have to be "superior" in every class to be a good car. Making it FUN makes it attractive to people. And they ARE.
I have a friend with a 525RWHP 91 Fox notch. I've never been in another car that has felt as scary, yet fun, at the same time.
It's a feeling, that, unless you've experienced it, you simply won't understand it, so there's no way I can properly explain it. The fact of the matter is though, that there are a LOT of people out there who can relate, and it's why the cars continue to sell, why they have the following they do, and why they have their own racing league (NMRA).
I would not put any of the other vehicles you cited as being in the same class or popularity category as the Mustang. Not even CLOSE. The closest I can think of would be the GM F-body guys or the Civic.
I agree with the feeling you get driving a Fox body. It's not so much something you can put into words. My GN is a truly unique experience too. To me, these cars have something special. Some of their shortcomings are what give them character. My TL, while nice and reliable will never have the soul that the older American cars have. To me, it's just a machine to get me from point A to point B. But if I have a bad day, I can hop in the GN and forget about my problems.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'd just like to point out that the fact that a car has a big following does not mean the car is good, nor does it mean the company is good at building cars. It just means the car is at least decent, and easily accessible.
Most generations of Mustang are [censored]. I'm sorry, but it's true. They are fun in a straight line on a dry road, cheap to buy, (usually) cheap to maintain, and VERY easy to make fast, but ultimately they are primitive machines that are nothing truly special to drive -- i.e. they give you nothing you couldn't get from another car that is better in other ways.
Other examples of popular-does-not-mean-good: Liberty, Escape/Mariner, PT Cruiser, Caliber, H2, etc.
The Mustang exudes a certain "feel" that draws people to it. They are fun, simple, fast, VERY easy to make faster, and reliable.
Fox body Mustangs had horrendous suspension. The Mustang II; Pinto based was an abomination. The SN95 was much better. The S197 is better still.
But the feeling you get in a Fox, when driving, is rivalled by few other vehicles. Anybody who's owned a V8 Fox likely knows what I'm talking about.
A car does not have to be "superior" in every class to be a good car. Making it FUN makes it attractive to people. And they ARE.
I have a friend with a 525RWHP 91 Fox notch. I've never been in another car that has felt as scary, yet fun, at the same time.
It's a feeling, that, unless you've experienced it, you simply won't understand it, so there's no way I can properly explain it. The fact of the matter is though, that there are a LOT of people out there who can relate, and it's why the cars continue to sell, why they have the following they do, and why they have their own racing league (NMRA).
I would not put any of the other vehicles you cited as being in the same class or popularity category as the Mustang. Not even CLOSE. The closest I can think of would be the GM F-body guys or the Civic.
I agree with the feeling you get driving a Fox body. It's not so much something you can put into words. My GN is a truly unique experience too. To me, these cars have something special. Some of their shortcomings are what give them character. My TL, while nice and reliable will never have the soul that the older American cars have. To me, it's just a machine to get me from point A to point B. But if I have a bad day, I can hop in the GN and forget about my problems.
Yup, and I bet you are [censored] well close to in love with the attitude your GN has too right? There's just something ABOUT those types of cars, you cannot explain it to people. They have to experience it to understand it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'd just like to point out that the fact that a car has a big following does not mean the car is good, nor does it mean the company is good at building cars. It just means the car is at least decent, and easily accessible.
Most generations of Mustang are [censored]. I'm sorry, but it's true. They are fun in a straight line on a dry road, cheap to buy, (usually) cheap to maintain, and VERY easy to make fast, but ultimately they are primitive machines that are nothing truly special to drive -- i.e. they give you nothing you couldn't get from another car that is better in other ways.
Other examples of popular-does-not-mean-good: Liberty, Escape/Mariner, PT Cruiser, Caliber, H2, etc.
The Mustang exudes a certain "feel" that draws people to it. They are fun, simple, fast, VERY easy to make faster, and reliable.
Fox body Mustangs had horrendous suspension. The Mustang II; Pinto based was an abomination. The SN95 was much better. The S197 is better still.
But the feeling you get in a Fox, when driving, is rivalled by few other vehicles. Anybody who's owned a V8 Fox likely knows what I'm talking about.
A car does not have to be "superior" in every class to be a good car. Making it FUN makes it attractive to people. And they ARE.
I have a friend with a 525RWHP 91 Fox notch. I've never been in another car that has felt as scary, yet fun, at the same time.
It's a feeling, that, unless you've experienced it, you simply won't understand it, so there's no way I can properly explain it. The fact of the matter is though, that there are a LOT of people out there who can relate, and it's why the cars continue to sell, why they have the following they do, and why they have their own racing league (NMRA).
I would not put any of the other vehicles you cited as being in the same class or popularity category as the Mustang. Not even CLOSE. The closest I can think of would be the GM F-body guys or the Civic.
I agree with the feeling you get driving a Fox body. It's not so much something you can put into words. My GN is a truly unique experience too. To me, these cars have something special. Some of their shortcomings are what give them character. My TL, while nice and reliable will never have the soul that the older American cars have. To me, it's just a machine to get me from point A to point B. But if I have a bad day, I can hop in the GN and forget about my problems.
Yup, and I bet you are [censored] well close to in love with the attitude your GN has too right? There's just something ABOUT those types of cars, you cannot explain it to people. They have to experience it to understand it.
http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB40CHC131A0,USB40ACC121A0
These 2 cars are comparable, with the Impala being cheaper with a bigger engine, more room and better gas mileage. I still don't see what people see in these imports as I've had zero problems with my 2004 Impala. One would think for an extra 5 grand you'd get a better car than that.
These 2 cars are comparable, with the Impala being cheaper with a bigger engine, more room and better gas mileage. I still don't see what people see in these imports as I've had zero problems with my 2004 Impala. One would think for an extra 5 grand you'd get a better car than that.
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
My TL has lost 50% of it's value while my GN has gone up 200%.
wasn't your TL in an accident where you thought the body shop swapped your car out?
I was worried about the trans. I'm not even factoring that into the 50% loss.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
My TL has lost 50% of it's value while my GN has gone up 200%.
wasn't your TL in an accident where you thought the body shop swapped your car out?
I was worried about the trans. I'm not even factoring that into the 50% loss.
Originally Posted By: Win
Seriously, I thought it was perfectly fair to endlessly criticize manufacturers for the junk they made thirty years ago, and completely reject the idea that they could have ever made any progress since.
That's what the rest of America does in regards to Domestic vehicles, so why can't it go both ways? Fair is fair as they say.
Seriously, I thought it was perfectly fair to endlessly criticize manufacturers for the junk they made thirty years ago, and completely reject the idea that they could have ever made any progress since.
That's what the rest of America does in regards to Domestic vehicles, so why can't it go both ways? Fair is fair as they say.
"I thought it was perfectly fair to endlessly criticize manufacturers for the junk they made thirty years ago, and completely reject the idea that they could have ever made any progress since."
Sure, what you said was 'fair' but the 70s Hondas were not particularly great (as you know first hand) and if they never got much better, they'd be just another odd-ball marque for people wanting to drive something cheap and different.
It was the 80s Hondas that built the reputation Honda has today. My Dad's girlfriend had a 1983 (?) Prelude that was a terrific car and he had to convince her it was time to trade it in because of the high-mileage ... but the car was a blast to drive (if you like small, sporty cars) and trouble free. She bought another 3 or 4 Preludes before switching to Accords when she retired. All were great cars with the exception of her 1993 Prelude Si that consumed a lot of oil (but did not smoke). Still, that wasn't a big deal because the car was otherwise flawless.
I had a 1986 Escort GT ("Quality is Job #1!") the last domestic car I ever bought (although others in my family continue to drive only domestics). The car was treated to my OCD preventative maintenance including 3,000 mile oil & filter changes, driven respectfully for 3+ years but was blowing visible smoke by the time it hit 45,000 miles. There's simply no excuse for that. Going down the road, if you threw in the clutch, the engine would sometimes die out. Plus, when you would jack up one corner of the car, the rest of the tires would stay firmly planted on the ground ... the chassis flexed THAT much!
I gave the car to my brother who drove it for less than a year and got rid of it so he could buy a truck. He hated the thing too and complained that when he was driving it, the transmission had developed a 3rd gear grind.
I replaced the Escort with a 1990 Acura Integra and for just $2,000 more, it felt like I had progressed about 2 decades in automotive engineering. The car was faster, more solid, handled better, shifted better, got better fuel economy AND kept its value better.
Sure, what you said was 'fair' but the 70s Hondas were not particularly great (as you know first hand) and if they never got much better, they'd be just another odd-ball marque for people wanting to drive something cheap and different.
It was the 80s Hondas that built the reputation Honda has today. My Dad's girlfriend had a 1983 (?) Prelude that was a terrific car and he had to convince her it was time to trade it in because of the high-mileage ... but the car was a blast to drive (if you like small, sporty cars) and trouble free. She bought another 3 or 4 Preludes before switching to Accords when she retired. All were great cars with the exception of her 1993 Prelude Si that consumed a lot of oil (but did not smoke). Still, that wasn't a big deal because the car was otherwise flawless.
I had a 1986 Escort GT ("Quality is Job #1!") the last domestic car I ever bought (although others in my family continue to drive only domestics). The car was treated to my OCD preventative maintenance including 3,000 mile oil & filter changes, driven respectfully for 3+ years but was blowing visible smoke by the time it hit 45,000 miles. There's simply no excuse for that. Going down the road, if you threw in the clutch, the engine would sometimes die out. Plus, when you would jack up one corner of the car, the rest of the tires would stay firmly planted on the ground ... the chassis flexed THAT much!
I gave the car to my brother who drove it for less than a year and got rid of it so he could buy a truck. He hated the thing too and complained that when he was driving it, the transmission had developed a 3rd gear grind.
I replaced the Escort with a 1990 Acura Integra and for just $2,000 more, it felt like I had progressed about 2 decades in automotive engineering. The car was faster, more solid, handled better, shifted better, got better fuel economy AND kept its value better.
Last edited:
Brianl703, the point I was trying to make is that the older Civics I see smoking have survived to this day ... severe mistreatment and all. I DO NOT see their domestic contemporaries in any number regardless of condition.
The one type of vehicle that does survive for decades is domestic trucks. If nothing else, their frame and body are fairly sturdy and so keeping them on the road is mostly a matter of replacing parts ... which are comparatively cheap and plentiful.
The one type of vehicle that does survive for decades is domestic trucks. If nothing else, their frame and body are fairly sturdy and so keeping them on the road is mostly a matter of replacing parts ... which are comparatively cheap and plentiful.
I don't know.. We have these discussions all the time that follow pretty much the same script. Somebody had bad experiences with domestics so they don't want to buy them anymore. Somebody else had bad experiences with imports and they don't want to buy them anymore. The fact that bad experiences exist with both seems to be used as a kind of "so there" point during the argument back and forth. I always get the feeling there's bitterness involved for some of the participants (not all though!). It just doesn't seem productive to me.
Obviously cars have progressed a lot in the last 30 years. There are many reasons people have problems with old and new cars alike -- engineering flaws, manufacturing flaws, neglect and abuse (both intentional and out of ignorance). It's indisputable fact that all auto manufacturers mentioned here have had both happy customers and disappointed ones, evidenced by the replies discussions like this always include.
I think that tells us that all makes have their good cars and their problem cars (both at the model level and the individual car level). I don't think anyone here will assert that's not the case. So we're really just arguing about magnitude and business response. Only it seems like most of the arguments are based on anecdotal evidence. Round and round we go.
I think the reason imports sometimes hold their value better is because of perception, and I'm not sure that's really debatable because perception is all people really have to use. I think this perception is probably rooted in fact, but is also influenced by factors such as marketing and word of mouth. I also think it's a feedback system, where your initial opinions of a car will strongly impact how you judge it and whether your ignore or fixate on certain classes of [usually minor] problems. Also, importantly, because of car buying frequency the facts that caused the perception are probably often way out of date (shown by frequent references to POS 80s GMs and smoking 70s Hondas).
Sorry, I didn't intend for this to be as long and rambling a post as it turned into.
Obviously cars have progressed a lot in the last 30 years. There are many reasons people have problems with old and new cars alike -- engineering flaws, manufacturing flaws, neglect and abuse (both intentional and out of ignorance). It's indisputable fact that all auto manufacturers mentioned here have had both happy customers and disappointed ones, evidenced by the replies discussions like this always include.
I think that tells us that all makes have their good cars and their problem cars (both at the model level and the individual car level). I don't think anyone here will assert that's not the case. So we're really just arguing about magnitude and business response. Only it seems like most of the arguments are based on anecdotal evidence. Round and round we go.
I think the reason imports sometimes hold their value better is because of perception, and I'm not sure that's really debatable because perception is all people really have to use. I think this perception is probably rooted in fact, but is also influenced by factors such as marketing and word of mouth. I also think it's a feedback system, where your initial opinions of a car will strongly impact how you judge it and whether your ignore or fixate on certain classes of [usually minor] problems. Also, importantly, because of car buying frequency the facts that caused the perception are probably often way out of date (shown by frequent references to POS 80s GMs and smoking 70s Hondas).
Sorry, I didn't intend for this to be as long and rambling a post as it turned into.
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
Brianl703, the point I was trying to make is that the older Civics I see smoking have survived to this day ... severe mistreatment and all. I DO NOT see their domestic contemporaries in any number regardless of condition.
I see older Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Dodges, etc. on a fairly regular basis, and none of these are as likely to be burning oil as an older Honda.
The very fact that I see anything burning oil is pretty notable, since as I mentioned elsewhere, this area has emissions testing requirements that will make it impossible to register a smoker. So they are already pretty rare around here.
Brianl703, the point I was trying to make is that the older Civics I see smoking have survived to this day ... severe mistreatment and all. I DO NOT see their domestic contemporaries in any number regardless of condition.
I see older Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Dodges, etc. on a fairly regular basis, and none of these are as likely to be burning oil as an older Honda.
The very fact that I see anything burning oil is pretty notable, since as I mentioned elsewhere, this area has emissions testing requirements that will make it impossible to register a smoker. So they are already pretty rare around here.
When it comes to car purchases, people buy based on emotion then justify with facts.
I need to append to my previous post:
When it comes to car purchases, people buy based on emotion then justify with facts.
In places like image-conscious California, car brand is used as a status symbol. Many people won't buy an American car because of its perception as being for older people or poor people or blue collar people. MBZ, Lexus, BMW, etc., are seen as "sophisicated" or "classy". There are certainly valid reasons to buy Lexus (rock-solid reliability and good build quality) but whether buyers admit it or not, the image factor played a role in their decision. They claim their reason for not buying American was of poor reliability but won't admit the real reason: poor brand image.
To further confirm how important image is, look at the Escalade. Who would have thought fifteen years ago that 20ish foreign-born professionals would ever buy a Caddy? But the Escalade does not carry the same image as your typical Caddy.
When it comes to car purchases, people buy based on emotion then justify with facts.
In places like image-conscious California, car brand is used as a status symbol. Many people won't buy an American car because of its perception as being for older people or poor people or blue collar people. MBZ, Lexus, BMW, etc., are seen as "sophisicated" or "classy". There are certainly valid reasons to buy Lexus (rock-solid reliability and good build quality) but whether buyers admit it or not, the image factor played a role in their decision. They claim their reason for not buying American was of poor reliability but won't admit the real reason: poor brand image.
To further confirm how important image is, look at the Escalade. Who would have thought fifteen years ago that 20ish foreign-born professionals would ever buy a Caddy? But the Escalade does not carry the same image as your typical Caddy.
One good look at Consumers Reports annual OWNERS SURVEY{where they poll thousands of original owners of the various cars reported on} will separate the fact from fiction.Japanese cars are still rated well above the American cars,and the American cars are getting better,now ahead of most European brands.The gap has narrowed in initial short term quality, but long term durability/quality is still far better with [censored] cars over both the domestics and euros.SAD, BUT TRUE
How come CR never polls me?
Originally Posted By: c3po
Guys, are we saying that if someone has a problem with a car, whether foreign or domestic, and they do not take care of the car, they only have themselves too blame.
I think that's true in general unless the car has a problem that happens to be the result of a defect and not related to their neglect, which is readily possible. E.g. A fictional person delaying oil changes on a 2001 Accord V6 auto which then suffers from transmission failure -- sure they shouldn't neglect oil changes but the trans failure wasn't due to their neglect in that case.
Guys, are we saying that if someone has a problem with a car, whether foreign or domestic, and they do not take care of the car, they only have themselves too blame.
I think that's true in general unless the car has a problem that happens to be the result of a defect and not related to their neglect, which is readily possible. E.g. A fictional person delaying oil changes on a 2001 Accord V6 auto which then suffers from transmission failure -- sure they shouldn't neglect oil changes but the trans failure wasn't due to their neglect in that case.
- Status
Similar threads
