Honda versus Toyota

I have been thinking about trading out of my American iron, and going with
something more economical.

We have long discussed here how Toyota and Honda seem to have the edge on
lower priced cars for economy, quality and dependability.

But it seems to me that Honda has had its share of quirky
problems...igniters that
are expensive and fail too often, valve stem seals, and a lot of other
little things.
Is this erroneous, or is Honda in fact a little less dependable that we
would be led to believe?

Both brands have stellar reliability. You might also consider Nissan,
who has almost the reliability of the two others... but costs
significantly less.

Professor
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:10:18 -0500, "HLS" > wrote:

>I have been thinking about trading out of my American iron, and going with
>something more economical.
>
>We have long discussed here how Toyota and Honda seem to have the edge on
>lower priced cars for economy, quality and dependability.
>
>But it seems to me that Honda has had its share of quirky
>problems...igniters that
>are expensive and fail too often, valve stem seals, and a lot of other
>little things.
>Is this erroneous, or is Honda in fact a little less dependable that we
>would be led to believe?
>


I think you will get more options than fact. Since some people
display product loyality beyond reason. Both Honda and Toyota are
well known well designed and built car makers.

As for me, I like toyota since that is what I have experience with.
I've never owned a Honda, but have driven them and say they drive very
nicely too.

Might want to check a consumer reports rating for simular makes and
models to help make yourself a clearer decision.

hth,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com

Ford HYBRIDs

There is not a car around that is problem proof...none of them are
perfect. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and to a lesser extent Subaru make well
designed cars that seem to have fewer problems that many other car
makers. Toyota had some well publicized sludging problems with their
motors in the 1990's. Because I know several people with Toyota's of
than vintage with high miles I attribute the sludging problem to sloppy
maintenance - 10,000 miles between oil changes or longer, etc.

HLS wrote:
> I have been thinking about trading out of my American iron, and going with
> something more economical.
>
> We have long discussed here how Toyota and Honda seem to have the edge on
> lower priced cars for economy, quality and dependability.
>
> But it seems to me that Honda has had its share of quirky
> problems...igniters that
> are expensive and fail too often, valve stem seals, and a lot of other
> little things.
> Is this erroneous, or is Honda in fact a little less dependable that we
> would be led to believe?
>
>

Dependable is a little big of a vague word. My 2003 Civic EX, for
example, has always been dependable, but has had some problems - fuel
guage fuctuates wildly, clutch is chattering, windshield molding has
come apart twice, whole dashboard went dead once, interior is a tad
squeaky - all at around 30k miles. Runs great, but isn't flawless.
On the other hand, we had a 1991 Chevy Cavalier that gave us years of
great service, even when after it was wrecked 3 times, and a mid 70's
Cutlass that was also extremely dependable.

> Dependable is a little big of a vague word. My 2003 Civic EX, for
> example, has always been dependable, but has had some problems - fuel
> guage fuctuates wildly, clutch is chattering, windshield molding has
> come apart twice, whole dashboard went dead once, interior is a tad
> squeaky - all at around 30k miles. Runs great, but isn't flawless.
> On the other hand, we had a 1991 Chevy Cavalier that gave us years of
> great service, even when after it was wrecked 3 times, and a mid 70's
> Cutlass that was also extremely dependable.

Dependability IS a vague word indeed.
My daughter, who is one of the worlds worst about maintenance, had a
Mitsubishi and a Nissan that ran without fail, were never maintained,
sometimes went a year without an oil change (and possibly without oil).

I have owned many different types of cars, and have really never had a
really bad one, since my 68 Ford Cobra 428 Mustang.. My 90 Reatta is a
headache, but I expected to have to deal with an aging overgadgeted car when
I got it. I do not depend on it...it is a diversion, much like racing dogs,
being married to a redhead, or owning an Italian car.

On this group, the Toyota and Honda have often been mentioned for their
apparent high consumer ratings. Mitsubishi, Suburu, and Nissan are
apparently good too but are not as touted as the first two.

I seem to see that later model Honda cars are not likely to be had with
anything but an automatic transmission, which probably means I will try a
Toyota experience in the future. (Autotrans are relatively troublefree
nowadays, up to a 100k or more, but when they go out on the road, it is like
being held and questioned by the Gestapo)

Thanks all

Both, Honda and Toyota have very high reliablility rating.
If you want to buy a new one, just try to testdrive either of them and
pick the one that you feel more comfortable in.
If it's gonna be a used car, how dependable is it will depend on how
well it was maintained by the previous owner.

"Autotrans are relatively troublefree nowadays, up to a 100k or more,
but when they go out on the road, it is like being held and questioned
by the Gestapo"

Actually there is no reason an automatic transmission should not run
for as long as then engine, in multiples of 100k miles. All you have
to do is have the fluid flushed periodically and fix problems when they
appear.

I'm not sure I understand how having a automatic transmission fail on
the open road is like being questioned by the Gestapo (or any other
dictator's police force). A failed manual transmission or clutch will
leave you just as stranded.

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Autotrans are relatively troublefree nowadays, up to a 100k or more,
> but when they go out on the road, it is like being held and questioned
> by the Gestapo"
>
> Actually there is no reason an automatic transmission should not run
> for as long as then engine, in multiples of 100k miles. All you have
> to do is have the fluid flushed periodically and fix problems when they
> appear.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how having a automatic transmission fail on
> the open road is like being questioned by the Gestapo (or any other
> dictator's police force). A failed manual transmission or clutch will
> leave you just as stranded.

I always service my automatic transmissions at 30,000 to 50,000 mile
intervals. I believe in it, regardless of what some on this newsgroup claim
(service shortens the life of a transmission..)

Manual transmissions seldom fail completely and disastrously without plenty
of advance warning.
Yes, it can happen, but is unlikely. Ditto clutch failure. Clutch failure
can usually be repaired by anyone with simple tools (and I always carry mine
with me in such cases) quickly and relatively expensively. Parts are usually
easily obtainable.

To take out an autotrans (especially on a 'foreign car') in some small town
in the middle of nowhere, and repair or replace it, can be very expensive
and very time consuming. One's choices are limited. You must do what you
are told...they have ways.....