In another discussion, people are posting about how those old Toyotas just go and go and go (long past 200k miles); how do you "in the know" think the new Toyotas, such as the Yaris, will stack up against them in terms of reliability and longevity?
Also, how do other makes do? Notably, my 2000 Suzuki Swift; what kind of lifespan?
The truth is ALL car makes and models can go and go and go. The major factors are maintenance along the way, LUCK, and driving style/type and habits. The last one is how much you can stomach repair costs and how much money you want to spend......
People assume domestics do not last and let them fall apart. On the other hand people assume Toyota/Honda last forever and pay for expensive repairs past 150k that send most other makes to the scrap heap.
Like people, some cars have good genes and some not so good. Andrew, following your shallow logic, one could even make a YUGO last a long time!!! You know that just is not so.
I take a lot of taxis all over the world; in North America the big rear drive sedans were the favorite because they were sturdy and cheap to maintain and repair. Many reach 1 million miles before they are retired.
Overseas I have ridden in some remarkable vehicles:
1. A Toyota Corolla diesel with 1.4 million kilometers (875,000 miles) on it and still on the original engine. The upholstery was a little shabby.
2. A 70s Volvo 240 with 650,000 miles on it in like new condition
3. A mid 80s Merceds 300 Turbodiesel with 700,000 miles on it and used in daily limousine service.
The above 3 vehicles had some things in common; they were WELL ENGINEERED, WELL BUILT, and RELATIVELY SIMPLE IN DESIGN. which made them easy to maintain and repair.
It so happens that Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and now Hyundai design cars for longer life, and many of these vehicles now travel over 200,000 miles before anything has to be replaced, other than wear items. My mother-in-law's 1994 Chevy Cavalier has only 40,000 miles on it and many items such as alternator, starter, A/C compressor have already bit the dust.
Th point some of us are trying to make is that some car companies take a different design philosophy and quality control approach than others.
None are going to be very accurate. I think I could predict a car's life better by taking a look at the history of the driver than the history of the make of car.
Adding to that, let's face facts. The owner of an expensive high quality car noted for long life is far more likely to maintain it properly than the owner of a Yugo.
Joseph, you touched on an important variable in car life; "maintenance mentality". I agree that a person who buys an economy car they can barely afford often skimps on maintenance when it competes with dental work for the kids.
I was always puzzled by the difference in reliability reported by Consumer Reports when they listed the 4 cookie cutter GM large cars; Oldsmobile, Buick, Chevrolet and Pontiac. Buick was always the best, followed by Oldsmobile, the Chevrolet, and Pontiac was always the worst; often considerably worse than Chevrolet, a virually identical car!
After looking at the buyer demographics and advertising campaigns, it became obvious that the target buyers were very different.
Buick owners were generally conservative, law-abiding types who drove carefully and most likely adhered to the maintenance schedules. Oldsmobile owners were a little sportier, but a lot like Buick owners. Chevrolet owners put a lot of miles on their cars, were average family types and had less money for maintenace. So Chevies were "less reliable".
Pontiac, by contrast, sold ATTITUDE and PERFORMANCE. Pontiac buyers are more rebellious, self-absorbed, and have different priorities than religiously doing maintenance. Needles to say, there are exceptions to this general staements. But it does explain a lot.
Using this reasoning we get really puzzled by Volkswagens, whose owners pay more for their cars than buyers of US compacts, are knowledgeable, and presumably do regular maintenance. With all this tender loving care, Volswagens should not break down and live forever. Yet the average Volkwagen owner has more problems and spends more money on maintenance and repairs than the owners of US compacts. The obvious answer here is that these cars are not well engineered and parts and service are over-priced. So the term "German Engineering " takes on a whole new meaning.
This reasoning also explains how many of our posters get fabulously long and reliable life out of very average cars, such a Ford Taurus, and why BMW owners always seem to have expensive prioblems.
This reasoning makes sense to me. Years ago, I had a Ford Maverick that was on Consumer Reports list as being not reliable. On the other hand, the Mercury Comet, an identical car, had an average reliability rating. I wrote to Consumer Reports about the discrepancy and the reply was "that's the way the data came out". I did find out later that the average Mercury owner was six or seven years above that of the Ford owner. I always feel better if I can call the previous owner of a used car that I purchase and try to size up how the car may have been driven.
The original VW Beetles seemed to be on the road a long time. However, most repairs could be made using kitchen utensiles and parts were readily available and not too expensive. One could replace an engine in a 10 year old VW Beetle for a lotg less money than a 10 year old Cadillac.
Yes, I remember the Comet. Ours, a 1971, had the 200 cu. inch 6, and very little else. We bought it with 17,000 miles on it, and gave it to my mother-in-law when it reached 50,000. Although good daily transportation, the heater core failed, the front suspension squeaked constantly, the exhaust system had to be replaced, the flap controlling the warm air for engine warmup failed, and a number of other irritating things. The bright orange paint job attracted considerable attention, however.
My mother-law drove it for 5 more years; by then the body had considerable rust. The engine and transmission were bullet-proof, however.
My Maverick was a 1971, but it had the 250 cubic inch 6. It was as reliable as booze at an Irish wake, but had an interior that made a school bus seem luxurious and it rode like a wheelbarrow. I finally traded the car when I found that I was spending more on preparation H from driving the car than I was on upkeep of the car. I had the same front suspension creak, so I cut holes in the fender liner and put grease fittings on the offending bushings. That did the trick. I guess this was a common Maverick/Comet repair.
Agree the Maverick/Comet had the worst seats of any car I've ever owned or driven. I had to use a seat cushion to get some spinal support. My moth-in-law solved the problem with a thick sheepskin cover; the same as used by airline pilots on long flights.
Ford set a record in cheapening up things by having an aluminum ignition key. On a holiday trip in Duluth, Minnesota, the key broke off in the ignition, locking the steering column as well. That weeeknd the Ford dealers parts guys were on strike, so it took a while to get a new steering column lock installed. We saw a lot of Duluth.
Joseph, you hit on the double whammy that hits cheap cars with respect to life expectancy. Like longevity in people, you need good genes, good lifestyle, and good nutrition to live long.
When I buy a used car from a private party, I spend as much time interviewing the owner as I spend testing and inspecting the car.
If the owner of a cheap car has little or no budget for maintenance, the car will not live long, regardless of how well designed it is. If the design is weak, and parts are expensive (because of low volume sales) the life is very short.
Most "captive imports", such as British Fords, GM's Vauxhalls, Chrysler Simcas, fit that category, and vanished very quickly. As did the Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Hyundai Pony and other forgettable losers.
On the other hand, the original VW Beetle sold in large quatities, was a sturdy design, and was easy and cheap to service. I still see some of the original ones from the 70s occasionally.
But expensive and unreliable cars also have short lives; at some point the repair bills will exceed the value, and the owner will send it to the reycler. A colleague of mine once owned and XKE Jaguar. At 60,000 miles nearly all items such as alternator, starter, electrical, had been replaced TWICE! He ended up doing a lot of his own maintenance, but it became a real chore, and he finally sold the car fo very little money.
There are some factors that are out of your hands,cars that had bad designs.I can think of the Chrysler mini-van transmission issues,Subaru headgasket issues,BMW V-8 engine block failures,Vega engine block design,Toyota engine oil sludging,older VW Rabbit electrical systems,full size pick-ups with inadaquate front brakes,all the design errors on the air cooled VW the list go on and on.The best maintiance and the most conservative driving habits will not help cars with basic design errors.
Consumer Reports, available at your local bookstore, is the best source available. My own experience of over 40 years owning various cars has been remakably consistant with CR's data.
Properly maintained and not abused I would expect the Yaris to provide many miles of useful service.
I have no knowledge of or experience with Suzukis.
Still amazes me that so many people put so much trust into Consumer Reports.
CR is also the group that says some maintenance issues should be ignored and age is not a critical factor with timing belts. Any of you agree with that?
This is a cut and paste from the CR website in which they apparently went to bat for a lady and her Nissan and do not think an aged belt needs to be replaced.
The manual says 105k miles, the car had 60k miles but the belt was apparently about 7 years old.
Blindly following a dealer's recommendations can be a big mistake. That's what Linda Minucci of West Islip, N.Y., discovered when a Nissan dealer advised her to change the timing belt as part of the 60,000-mile service on her 2000 Pathfinder. Minucci balked at spending the $429 after noticing that the owner's manual recommended replacing the belt at 105,000 miles.
“Am I supposed to listen to them or am I supposed to listen to my service manual?” she asked, noting that many people probably don't think to check the manual. The dealer told Minucci that her manual is incorrect. Nissan told us the manual is accurate
Another cut and paste from CR about scheduled maintenance.
Specify needed services. Use your owner's manual to determine which services need to be performed at specific mileage intervals. Then tell the shop those services you want performed. Don't be swayed by the extras that a shop might want to throw in, padding the bill. Avoid using terms such as “tune-up.” You'll only invite a quote for an expensive package.
Someone at Nissan was wrong with agreeing with CR on the first one and CR is wrong in which they state that a car owner should always adhere to the owners manual. There are a number of things that should be performed more often than the manual recommends.
No doubt this car owner will be screaming bloody murder when/if the timing belt breaks at 90k miles or the transmission drops prematurely because the fluid was never changed.
I think we have a situation here where the car manufacturerr knows that low maintenance requirements sells cars, and Consumer Reports does not have enough qualified technical staff to determine what a car really needs for long, reliable life!
Originally, Japanese cars had very extensive maintenance requirements. These got eased over time, not necesarily for the good, when quality went up and they became more familiar with the US car market.
Motor Week, the US public TV car program had Pat Goss advise viewers how to get maximum life out of their cars. He specified transmission fluid and filter change every 50,000 miles, radiator flush and coolant change every 50,000 miles, and timing belt replacement, where appicable, every 60,000 miles. He also recommended much more frequent oil changes that specified. This, regardless what the owner's manual or the dealer would suggest. Most responsible independent mechanics would agree with this.
For the confused non-technical car owner, first follow the manual religiously. As the car gets to 40,000 miles do the cooling system and transmission service, and the timing belt at 60,000. For oil changes, follow the SEVERE SERVICE shcedule in the manual. This should get most cars to 250,000 miles without major items failing.
While some dealers may sell services that are not needed, sometimes the recommendation by the dealer, even though suggested sooner than required by the owner's manual may be right on target. Case in point: I bought a 2000 Ford Windstar from a trusted country dealer. When I took the Windstar for the 30,000 mile service, the dealer changed the transmission fluid. This service was not required for "normal" service. However, I also found out that the transmission in the Windstar was not known for its durability, and that independent transmission shops also recommend the 30,000 mile transmission service for this vehicle. I had an independent transmission shop change the fluid again at 60,000. They reported that everything was in good shape. My son now has the Windstar and has about 110,000 miles and has had no transmission problems. Before he bought my Windstar, my son had a 1999 Ford Windstar. He had to have a transmission rebuild at 110,000 miles or thereabouts.
08/29/2008 2:46:35 PM
