|
Xguard86 posted:personal anecdote but when my GF was shopping in that category, many many people said "why are you looking at (Brand X) just go buy a Toyota/Honda because they're the best". Even though the cars may be worse, my (100% anecdotal) family experience with Honda is that Honda Corporate will pay for warranty work well beyond when the normal warranty runs out. My fiancee's mom got the engine block replaced on Honda's dime on her 130,000 mile old Civic, and they also had a Honda minivan transmission replaced at 90,000 miles for free. Both of these cars had no extended warranty of any type on them or dealer bullshit, just Honda Corporate saying they would pick up the repair bill because the parts were defective. We just bought a new Ford Focus, and as much as we liked the car compared to its competitors, I'm nervous about the long-term reliability of its dry dual-clutch transmission.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
That's Honda America, though. Honda Canada treats its customers like poo poo. One of the most recent situations I can point to is that the Civic Si had a chronic gearbox failure issue. Cars were failing - in warranty - because of a thing that Honda USA had a TSB and was fixing cars for, and Honda Canada was blaming the drivers and telling them to go gently caress themselves. I will never understand the inertia this brand enjoys in this country, because it has fallen so far from the days of million-mile 91 Accords and enthusiast-loved fartcanned tin coffins. People I know with new Hondas complain about how they're not as good as their old Honda, complain about the dealers and would still happily buy another one and get poo poo on by the same dealership experience. Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
So why is the Golf/Jetta counted separately, while the different body styles of other cars are presumably grouped together? Adding the two VWs would bump it just in front of the Elantra. No that that matters at all, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Any company treats canadians like poo poo. E46 BMWs have a pretty serious issue with the rear subframe mounting points tearing and I'm not sure if you could ever get it covered in canada. Probably depended on the specific dealer. But in the states they offered free inspections and repairs up to a certain date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
BigBadBrewsta posted:I'll admit the road noise and handling could've been improved (and boy do I hope they were), but the interior is still blah. Oh well, you could certainly do worse. The interior and exterior styling are what they updated. The interior got a lot of soft touch surfaces to cover the hard plastic and that fake French stitching that's all the rave now. The exterior got tarted up, especially in the taillight treatment. Really though, the '12 car was a fine competitor, but it got a load of poo poo because Honda rested on their laurels and released a car that was much more conservative in design and style than the one it was replacing. If any other company had released the '12 Civic instead, it would have been praised as the very decent small car it is. As it stands, it rides and drives better than the Korean cars, and has a more open and usable interior than the American cars. And despite only having 140 HP and a 5 speed, it has competitive acceleration and economy numbers. mobby_6kl posted:So why is the Golf/Jetta counted separately, while the different body styles of other cars are presumably grouped together? Adding the two VWs would bump it just in front of the Elantra. No that that matters at all, but still. The North American Jetta has been so cheapened that it shares very little with its Golf sibling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
BigBadBrewsta posted:The Hyundai Elantra has carved out a very successful niche for itself. Yes, it lags significantly behind the Focus / Cruze / Civic / Corolla, but it's also well ahead of the VW Jetta. It's a very solid fifth. The Elantra's success also demonstrates how much Kia has yet to go in building up its brand. Even though folks who read reviews and car enthusiasts know Kia is making pretty good cars these days, there's still so much negative energy and negative connotation associated with Kia that folks won't buy the Forte in significant numbers. That's interesting, because the Forte is considered on-par with the Elantra by most. There are two big reasons in addition to the brand cache to explain the difference between the Elantra and Forte. Hyundai is advertising the Elantra a shitload more than the Forte at the moment and for whatever reason Kia seems to be having a hard time getting their fully loaded models out to dealers in the sort of numbers required. My dealership has sold every single nav equipped Forte we have had within a week of stocking it in. Thats the part of the segment where the Forte really excels. The base model doesnt differentiate itself from the other cars in the class, but the quality of the nav and having features like ventilated seats are where the Forte's tech advantage sets it apart. Unfortnately you cant sell cars you dont have in stock. There are literally 3 nav equipped Forte's in the entire New York metro area dealer region which is a place where people have money to buy higher optioned models. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Also the Forte was an old design that just got redone, and it was one of the first redesigns of the "new" non-bad Kia so it's still carrying a little bit of the stigma versus the completely new Optima. I actually think the redesign is somewhat uglier, but supposedly the interior is much better and maybe styling-wise people really do want giant headlighs and curvy crap everywhere on small cars, so give 'em what they want I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
BigBadBrewsta posted:
I've made a few posts about the current-gen Elantra recently. I test drove one with my wife a few months ago as we're looking for a replcament for her '08 Focus. It was really great. Smooth, quiet, comfortable, and unbelievably feature-packed for the money. Nothing else in the segment compares for value IMO. Sure, the Civic and 3 may feel a bit more nimble, but the Elantra seems like a great transportation appliance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
kill me now posted:There are two big reasons in addition to the brand cache to explain the difference between the Elantra and Forte. Hyundai is advertising the Elantra a shitload more than the Forte at the moment and for whatever reason Kia seems to be having a hard time getting their fully loaded models out to dealers in the sort of numbers required. My dealership has sold every single nav equipped Forte we have had within a week of stocking it in. Thats the part of the segment where the Forte really excels. The base model doesnt differentiate itself from the other cars in the class, but the quality of the nav and having features like ventilated seats are where the Forte's tech advantage sets it apart. Unfortnately you cant sell cars you dont have in stock. There are literally 3 nav equipped Forte's in the entire New York metro area dealer region which is a place where people have money to buy higher optioned models. The redesigned coupe and hatchback have not shown up in dealers yet either have they? That might have something to do with it too although I don't know how much the earlier versions sold in relation to the sedan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
BigBadBrewsta posted:I'll admit the road noise and handling could've been improved (and boy do I hope they were), but the interior is still blah. Oh well, you could certainly do worse. There were significant changes to the interior in terms of materials and sound deadening materials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
I saw a new elantra hatch on the road recently (US) It looked pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I've made a few posts about the current-gen Elantra recently. I test drove one with my wife a few months ago as we're looking for a replcament for her '08 Focus. It was really great. Smooth, quiet, comfortable, and unbelievably feature-packed for the money. Nothing else in the segment compares for value IMO. Sure, the Civic and 3 may feel a bit more nimble, but the Elantra seems like a great transportation appliance. Xguard86 posted:personal anecdote but when my GF was shopping in that category, many many people said "why are you looking at (Brand X) just go buy a Toyota/Honda because they're the best". It was even kind of hard for her, after hands on experience, to finally admit the Hyundai was superior because she loved her old Camry. Exact same situation with my GF. Her parents were giving her a very generous downpayment and basically said, "Thou shalt go purchase a Civic or Corolla." They were very hesitant and skeptical when she declared she wanted an Elantra and she had to gently push back and insist that was the best car she had test driven. After her parents rode in it and drove it for the first time, they're now looking to replace their Toyota RAV4 with a Hyundai Tucson or Sante Fe Sport. They weren't willing to give Hyundai a chance, but once they saw her's, they did a complete 180. She's had her Elantra 14 months now and still loves it. Angryhampster nailed it: the Elantra is a great "transportation appliance". kill me now posted:There are two big reasons in addition to the brand cache to explain the difference between the Elantra and Forte. Hyundai is advertising the Elantra a shitload more than the Forte at the moment and for whatever reason Kia seems to be having a hard time getting their fully loaded models out to dealers in the sort of numbers required. My dealership has sold every single nav equipped Forte we have had within a week of stocking it in. Thats the part of the segment where the Forte really excels. The base model doesnt differentiate itself from the other cars in the class, but the quality of the nav and having features like ventilated seats are where the Forte's tech advantage sets it apart. Unfortnately you cant sell cars you dont have in stock. There are literally 3 nav equipped Forte's in the entire New York metro area dealer region which is a place where people have money to buy higher optioned models. Agreed. The higher-optioned Kias really shine. But even as an enthusiast who reads car reviews, talks cars on Internet forums, and generally stays up to date on the market, I still couldn't bring myself to buy a Kia right now. I know they're good cars. I know they've come a long way, but I feel like I would still have a hard time going on Facebook and declaring, "Hey guys, I bought a new Kia!" I know that sounds stupid, but I feel like I'd have a hard time with it. And I just bought a 2013 Hyundai Elantra GT and had no problems posting a few pics of it on Facebook and posting a status update about it. Kia is still a few years behind Hyundai in changed consumer perception... at least, that's how I feel. (Of course, here in some parts of Iowa, you can still raise eyebrows by driving any car that's not a GM or Ford. Des Moines isn't so bad, but the rural parts of the state...) KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There were significant changes to the interior in terms of materials and sound deadening materials. PeterWeller posted:The interior and exterior styling are what they updated. The interior got a lot of soft touch surfaces to cover the hard plastic and that fake French stitching that's all the rave now. The exterior got tarted up, especially in the taillight treatment. Really though, the '12 car was a fine competitor, but it got a load of poo poo because Honda rested on their laurels and released a car that was much more conservative in design and style than the one it was replacing. If any other company had released the '12 Civic instead, it would have been praised as the very decent small car it is. As it stands, it rides and drives better than the Korean cars, and has a more open and usable interior than the American cars. And despite only having 140 HP and a 5 speed, it has competitive acceleration and economy numbers. I knew people bashed on the 2012 Civic based on its looks -- but that wasn't the part I had a problem with. I thought the 2013 update was externally only. Didn't know they did so much to the sound deadening and interior materials. I'll retract my objections until I give the 2013 a spin. Still, isn't it indicative of Honda / Toyota's problems when they even have to do an "emergency" refresh? Good on them for recognizing it and doing it, but companies with a lot less respect and caché haven't had to resort to such measures. People would poo poo all over Dodge or Kia if they had to do such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
I've checked out a 2013 Si (I drive a 2007 Si), the interior is still garbage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
There was a pretty good article on autonews about the thinking that went in to the 2012 and also the emergency refresh. It happens. I think it's actually a credit to Honda that they recognized they had missed the boat with the 12 before it was released and dropped a ton of cash in to fixing it. You can't hit every launch and you have to be able to recognize when you miss and take necessary action. Same thing with Chrysler and the Cherokee, although that's more of a performance issue than competitiveness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
I was at the annual auto show a couple weeks ago and as far as transportation appliances go both Hyundai and Kia were much more impressive than Honda and Toyota, especially dollar-for-dollar. Granted I didn't drive any of them so it's hard to say definitively, but if I were looking for a cheap A-to-B car I'd be stupid to ignore the Koreans. It's not so much that Honda and Toyota are making bad cars, per se, but IMO it seems they've been resting our their laurels for far, far too long and the rest of the market has caught up or surpassed them in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I've checked out a 2013 Si (I drive a 2007 Si), the interior is still garbage. I drive a 2008 sedan. Aside from the seats, I prefer the 2013's interior. The 2008 interior looks decent, but it's all hard plastics and sharp edges too. In its defense, it's held up a lot better than that of my GTI, which is why I'm not really bothered by those hard plastics. In regards to Kia, I don't think they care too much about the Forte. They're too busy counting the dollars the Soul brings in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
I saw a bunch of Kia's today and they pretty much all had the bat logo on their front grill. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
tobu posted:I saw a bunch of Kia's today and they pretty much all had the bat logo on their front grill. You aren't the only one who thinks so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The North American Jetta has been so cheapened that it shares very little with its Golf sibling. The Jetta Sportwagen is actually still a MkV chassis underneath, not the Mk6 Jetta, so it's more closely related to the Golf than the Jetta for the time being. The next JSW will be based on the newer Jetta platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I drive a 2008 sedan. Aside from the seats, I prefer the 2013's interior. The 2008 interior looks decent, but it's all hard plastics and sharp edges too. In its defense, it's held up a lot better than that of my GTI, which is why I'm not really bothered by those hard plastics. I'm pretty upset with my '08 SI. The clearcoat is fading all over the place and the dealer pretty much told me tough nuts. It started fading about 2 years ago and every day I find new spots. Only thing I don't like (other than the paint) is the lack of bluetooth without nav. I don't really care enough to put out the expense of a head unit (especially with keeping the stock amp working seems like a bit of a chore, same with steering controls), but I would really have liked hands free audio streaming/voice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
KKKLIP ART posted:I'm pretty upset with my '08 SI. The clearcoat is fading all over the place and the dealer pretty much told me tough nuts. It started fading about 2 years ago and every day I find new spots. Only thing I don't like (other than the paint) is the lack of bluetooth without nav. I don't really care enough to put out the expense of a head unit (especially with keeping the stock amp working seems like a bit of a chore, same with steering controls), but I would really have liked hands free audio streaming/voice. Wow! That sucks. My paint, except on the spoiler that I had resprayed after some poo poo fell on it, has held up great, and I parked the car uncovered in the Texas sun for three years. Bluetooth would be nice, but I'll just wait until I get a new car. It's installed in pretty much everything these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
LtDansMagkLegs posted:The redesigned coupe and hatchback have not shown up in dealers yet either have they? That might have something to do with it too although I don't know how much the earlier versions sold in relation to the sedan. Yeah, those probably wont be out until December or January at this point. Kia has been making good cars since 2010/2011 and very good cars with all of their 2014 models (except for the Sedona). We just started getting in the new Soul and its jaw droppingly good in all trim levels. Its always been a practical vehicle but now it rides very nicely and can be loaded up to the same sort of luxury features that you can get in a well equipped Optima or Sorento.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
kill me now posted:Yeah, those probably wont be out until December or January at this point. I bought a new 2011 Kia Forte5 SX with the six-speed. Have you driven any of the more recent manual transmission Fortes? I guess I had the rose-colored new-car goggles on when I bought it but I'm seriously loving sick of the clutch and throttle of my car. The clutch isn't linear at all - the friction point is nonexistent. It's either no clutch engagement or stall. Even on a flat road it's very difficult to coax the car to move by easing off the clutch without stabbing the throttle. It also doesn't help that the throttle tip-in is WAY too aggressive. I've been driving stick exclusively for about 8 years now and when I'm on a slight incline, I look like I'm brand new to it because as I'm easing off the clutch I try to gently modulate the throttle but it ends up revving to 2-2.5k. I am so tempted to ditch this poo poo, semi-commit financial seppuku, and trade it in for a used 2012 Mustang GT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Mazda6 Clubsport diesel  diesel engine (if not this car in particular) is confirmed for next year. 31/43mpg, no urea injection, 176 hp, 5200rpm redline, sequential twin turbo. Mazda6 2.5l with the manual transmission  http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/05/mazda6-sema-2013/ Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:GM is exploring a new concept: Putting the biggest engine in the smallest truck. Why not just import Holden Utes instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Mazda6 Clubsport diesel
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
The Mazda6 would be such a pretty car if the lower half was crunched down to about half the height that it currently is. The car has all these nice lines, and then big brick slabs for the side panels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:The Mazda6 would be such a pretty car if the lower half was crunched down to about half the height that it currently is. The car has all these nice lines, and then big brick slabs for the side panels. You could say that about basically every modern car, though. Someone post that mustang comparison photoshop. Or the challenger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:The Mazda6 would be such a pretty car if the lower half was crunched down to about half the height that it currently is. The car has all these nice lines, and then big brick slabs for the side panels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Why not just import Holden Utes instead? Yes, federalizing another model is a much smarter idea than just making a sporty trim of something you're already building and selling. A trim that will likely sell 2-3x more than that model you're looking at federalizing ever would. You should write GM a letter so that they can benefit from your genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
If GM actually does ever bring a ute over (they won't), I'd bet that 90% of people who bitch and moan online that they can't buy one never actually would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:I bought a new 2011 Kia Forte5 SX with the six-speed. Have you driven any of the more recent manual transmission Fortes? I guess I had the rose-colored new-car goggles on when I bought it but I'm seriously loving sick of the clutch and throttle of my car. The clutch isn't linear at all - the friction point is nonexistent. It's either no clutch engagement or stall. Even on a flat road it's very difficult to coax the car to move by easing off the clutch without stabbing the throttle. It also doesn't help that the throttle tip-in is WAY too aggressive. I've been driving stick exclusively for about 8 years now and when I'm on a slight incline, I look like I'm brand new to it because as I'm easing off the clutch I try to gently modulate the throttle but it ends up revving to 2-2.5k. I haven't driven any of the 2014 Forte's with a stick but I have driven the base 6spd soul and didn't have any trouble being smooth on the clutch and throttle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:If any carmaker actually does ever bring a non-US car, I'd bet that 90% of people who bitch and moan online that they can't buy one never actually would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:If GM actually does ever bring a ute over (they won't), I'd bet that 90% of people who bitch and moan online that they can't buy one never actually would. Q_res posted:Yes, federalizing another model is a much smarter idea than just making a sporty trim of something you're already building and selling. A trim that will likely sell 2-3x more than that model you're looking at federalizing ever would. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Yes, federalizing another model is a much smarter idea than just making a sporty trim of something you're already building and selling. A trim that will likely sell 2-3x more than that model you're looking at federalizing ever would. Add in the fact that an ute might not qualify as a truck depending on how CAFE standards are read, and could screw up the fleet averages. Also, fast trucks are just as awesome as an ute, so there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Add in the fact that an ute might not qualify as a truck depending on how CAFE standards are read, and could screw up the fleet averages. You're telling me that a Kia Soul is a light truck but a Holden Ute isn't? What the hell, CAFE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
CAFE's classifications of vehicles are one of the (several) reasons there are so many more SUV and "crossover" models in North America now rather than more small, super-efficient cars. If it can get a "light truck" designation, then it doesn't have to get as good fuel economy to meet CAFE standards. A small hatchback, however, has to get much better fuel economy in order to meet the CAFE standards for it's size class - compact/subcompact/whatever it's called. Since it's easier and cheaper for automakers to just make slightly more efficient crossovers with tall cruising gears, and since people will buy them, that's what we get. At least, that's how I understand it. I think this topic came up some time ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Ayem posted:CAFE's classifications of vehicles are one of the (several) reasons there are so many more SUV and "crossover" models in North America now rather than more small, super-efficient cars. If it can get a "light truck" designation, then it doesn't have to get as good fuel economy to meet CAFE standards. A small hatchback, however, has to get much better fuel economy in order to meet the CAFE standards for it's size class - compact/subcompact/whatever it's called. Since it's easier and cheaper for automakers to just make slightly more efficient crossovers with tall cruising gears, and since people will buy them, that's what we get. I don't think CAFE really works that way, though. Old CAFE was not stratified by model - it was literally Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and only divided into cars and light trucks. New CAFE, starting in 2011, is based on wheelbase and track width along with the car/truck divide. Except the wheelbase of a compact SUV is often identical to the compact/midsize car on which it's based. It's not really some sort of evil automaker conspiracy. Your typical American wants the biggest car with the biggest engine for their dollar (purchase price and now, with rising fuel prices, fuel economy) because it suits their needs - a bigger car is more convenient to carry things and more comfortable when highway cruising. It also feels more versatile - you might only haul around furniture or giant crates of stuff from Costco a few times a year, but the ability to do so is usually overrepresented in the purchase decision. And also because paying for delivery is annoying. People like buying big cheap cars with lots of power and don't like buying small cars with tiny engines, so they'll keep buying the former over the latter unless forced to. This is primarily why people started buying trucks and SUVs once large, cheap RWD sedans with V8 options disappeared back in the late 80s/early 90s. The only reason enlightened Europe is so focused on tiny cars is, one, because they drive shorter distances at lower speeds in more urbanized areas where parking and even maneuvering is a nightmare so small size is more desirable, and two, owning a car and then fueling it is comparatively way more expensive, so they have to settle for smaller cars that use less fuel because they have no other practical choice. Rich people in Europe still like and buy large luxury sedans and SUVs. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize CAFE had changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Ayem posted:Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize CAFE had changed. Eh, you still may be right. It's still advantageous to classify a vehicle as a light truck if possible, since a lower mileage requirement means you can make it cheaper and more powerful at the same "footprint" (wheelbase x track width) than a car. edit: looked up the legal definition of "light truck": quote:§ 523.5 OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:48
|
|