Consumer Reports says: keep your car for 225,000 miles
The average car buyer trades his car in every five years. If, instead, you didn't trade your car in but kept it for 15 years, or 225,000 miles, Consumer Reports says you'd save $30,800. How'd they get that figure? If you bought a Honda EX and kept it for a decade-and-a-half rather than replacing it, you'd save $20,500 in new car expenses, depreciation, taxes, and insurance. The other $10,300 comes from the interest you earned on the twenty grand -- because of course you'd invest it responsibly, which is the entire reason you aren't trading your car in, right?
The magazine then gives a list of Good Bets and Bad Bets to make it past 200K miles, even with good maintenance. Every single car on the Good Bets list is either a Honda or Toyota. The bad bets are almost all European, with two Nissans for company. Fascinating that no domestic made either list, when we see cars every day that look like they've wrapped the odometer and done another two hundred thousand. Let the commentary begin.
Thanks for the tip, Justin!
[Source: CNN Money]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
Alex 8:10PM (9/06/2007)
every 5 years? you dun say...
whenever my family looks into a new car... it's definitely for a long haul. i hope my S2K lasts me forever... c'mon Honda reliability!!!
Reply
vlad_40 10:48PM (9/06/2007)
What I find interesting with most of the replies (as well as CR "stats") is that few understand that most manufacturers today are pretty good at what they do .......... or they wouldn't still be in business.
The unvarnished truth is .................. whatever your choice, take care of it and do the scheduled and preventive maintenance and they will last longer than your infatuation.
I've owned about an equal number of "asian", "european", and "american" cars and they have ALL provided good results. Ya wanna know why? It's because I TOOK CARE OF THEM! When you "boil it down" or "get to the brass tacks", it's all about the owner taking care of his/her transportation.
When you get past the emotion of the buyer, it's truly all about taking good care of your purchases. Whether it's homes, dinnerware, automobiles or children .............. what you put in determines what you get out.
Louis Duran 11:38AM (9/07/2007)
@vlad
This is true in general but not always the case. I babied my Audi for the first 8 years of its life. And like a baby, it shit on me to the tune of ~$3000 in unplanned repairs. Autos.msn.com has a reliability tab for older cars. For my car ('98 A6) they mention several common and expensive to fix problems. My car has had every one of the problems tracked by MSN Autos.
I chalk this up to buying the first year of a major redesign. In the future, I will not buy the first year of a major design change. Checking the reliability of the 2000 A6 is a very different story. Many fewer problems reported and I don't think that is just because it is two years newer since most of the problems I had were within the first 6 years in service. My theory is that the third year or later after a major re-design will give the most reliable car.
LM 12:47PM (9/07/2007)
Man, if I had an S2000, I'd sure want it to last forever.
Honda isn't perfect, but for every lemon there are many more cherries.
My girlfriend drives a 94' Accord with 310,000 miles... she changes the oil, gets the occasional tire and brake work... that's all. Rock solid. And that's despite Chicago winters...
Don 2:28PM (9/07/2007)
I'd keep my Focus for 225,000 miles if it wasn't on its last legs at 93,000 miles.
Viv 8:13PM (9/06/2007)
My 93 camaro has 260K already and still running fine.
I just hope my grandprix can last till around 200K as well.
Reply
psarhjinian 8:14PM (9/06/2007)
Gee, can Autoblog writers troll any harder for a flamewar?
Ok, how about this: by and large, domestic car quality has been iffy over a 5+ year term. You have gold standards (the 3800-series W-Bodies built in Oshawa) and bad ones (the G-Bodies, the Sebring/Stratus, first-year Ford Focuses) and those in-between (the PT Cruiser, the later Deltas, 2G Focuses). Toyota and Honda, by comparison, have hardly any colossal failures (the V6 4Runner, early versions of the Honda V6/5AT powertrain).
Sure, they've gotten better recently, but this has long been a Japanese stronghold and we won't see the results of the supposed American quality resurgence until 2010.
That the Europeans can't build a car that lasts is unsuprising. The engineering process is all about technical cock-fighting with the competition, rather than the simplest solution possible.
Reply
Brian Dreggors 8:20PM (9/06/2007)
lol. Unreliable G-bodies? Don't kid yourself. Among the most well-built and reliable domestics out there.
psarhjinian 9:34PM (9/06/2007)
Nope, the Ws (Impala, Regal/Century/Allure/Lacrosse, GP) were the reliable ones. You know, the ones that bouyed Buick in the JDP rankings and occasionally top the Camry and Accord in CR. They're not exceptional cars in performance terms (the LH Chryslers and Ford Taurus were better) but they are solid.
The Gs (DTS/Deville, Aurora, Bonneville, PA/Lucerne) were (and still are) flakey buggers. Especially evil are the Shortstar-equipped models.
Of important note is that odo miles != reliability. My old Corolla made it to 500K, but only the last 100K were problematic. My Saab, on the other hand, is at 180K and has been glitchy most of the time. It might make it 500K+ as well, but it's not a fun ride.
Ben H. 9:45PM (9/06/2007)
I still see a lot of G-Bodies out there with running engines. That and F-bodies.
Brian Dreggors 10:56PM (9/06/2007)
Psarhjinian: Uh, no G-body every had a Shortstar engine; rather that was the W-body Intrigue. Half the G-bodies you mention used the same diehard powertrain combo the higher-end W-bodies used.
Having two G-bodies in the driveway (SSEi and 1st-gen Aurora), both with high-mileage makes me question your understanding of these cars. You also compare the W-bodies to the fullsize LH-cars (G-body competitors) and the vastly inferior Taurus, so...yeah...
r129 9:52AM (9/07/2007)
Actually, the 2001-2002 Aurora's base engine was the Shortstar.
David 11:29AM (9/07/2007)
Great post, especially the comment about the Europeans being more interested in out-teching each other than they are in building long-lasting vehicles. The one exception might be their work horse diesels (Mercedes taxis for example) that end up in fleet service. They seem to run forever.
rick 11:24PM (9/07/2007)
I had an '86 Olds Cutlass that wouldn't die - I thought that was a G body - no?
Paul Y 8:15PM (9/06/2007)
This is why I want a 20+ year old Mercedes (you know, back when they cared more about quality than a horsepower war with BMW)-- sure, it'll have gone 250k by now, but a fresh tranny and fastidious maintenance will have it last an entire other lifetime!
Reply
Woodenduck 8:23PM (9/06/2007)
I subscribed to Consumer Reports for almost 20 years. I found their auto testing methods and reports to be biased and unreliable. They often said things about cars I owned that were highly inconsistent with my experience, some of which seemed to be outright lies. Therefore, I am sceptical about much of what they put out in their car tests and publications. My recommendation to anyone who will listen is to use other sources and avoid Consumer Reports completely.
Reply
Viv 8:29PM (9/06/2007)
CR is a bunch of nonsense. Their latest truck "comparo" proved it to everybody. If anybody still doesn't think CR is the Japanese's official brochure they are just not looking.
Rob 9:58PM (9/06/2007)
I'll never forget when I realized you had to take their reviews with a grain of salt... I was reading their Corvette review and all they could talk about was how small the trunk is.
Dave 9:16AM (9/07/2007)
I agree, CR isn't legitimate and this was further enforced this year when they had that press conference to apologize.
Dan 12:37PM (9/07/2007)
I agree, Comsumer Reports reviews are biased. The best way to learn about the reliability of a vehicle - go ask an owner who purchased it brand new. Don't trust those so-called "independent reviews" published by magazines. They are just helping themselves, not car buyers. I have seen, many times, very good vehicles getting "worse" ratings and very bad vehicles getting "good" ratings in Consumer Reports. DO NOT TRUST CONSUMER REPORTS (magazine, that is).