15th Aug 2008, 10:35

When I wrote comment 10:23, I wasn't necessarily putting down Hyundai. They have come a very long way and have actually surpassed Toyota in quality and performance (in a 2006 Car and Driver comparo the Sonata beat out the Camry).

Although I'm opposed to trying to destroy the jobs of hard-working Americans, and buy nothing but domestic, I will acknowledge that Hyundai and Kia have both come a very long way. What I can't stomach is people who know absolutely nothing about domestics making unfounded statements such as "I didn't look at Fords because Fords are junk". That shows an irrational and unfounded bias.

I love to drive lots of different cars, and I've driven a number of them, including Toyota and Hyundai, in order to make a well-informed decision in buying a car. Before I bought my last Ford (in 2007) I test drove several imports and cars from all three of the domestic companies. I felt I got more car, a better warranty and better value in my Ford. I can base that on an honest comparison and not make statements like "I didn't look at Toyota, because Toyota is junk". I DID look at Toyota, saw that it had a very poor warranty, poor build quality, did not drive as well and was over priced.

18th Aug 2008, 10:26

So now the world's best authority on cars is a New York cab driver. What next?? Santa Claus driving a Honda??

19th Aug 2008, 16:16

10:26 Obviously, a person who drives cars all day/night long for a living, in stop and go traffic in one of the busiest cities in the world, and sees which break down and which don't, ISN'T qualified to state the fact that Fords break down more than Toyotas (imports) do. These guys LIVE in automobiles more or less. Nice try at a rebuttle though.

I'm telling you that I was told by four NYC cab drivers that their company's Toyotas last longer than the Fords do.

21st Aug 2008, 10:37

Comparing a large rear-rear Ford to a puny Camry is sort of like comparing a Harley to a motor scooter. There is no real competition for the big Fords. You'll notice that virtually ALL police departments use Crown Victorias. That is good because most people would have a laughing fit and have an accident if they saw a CAMRY police car!!

22nd Aug 2008, 06:35

10:37 Actually, the police use Crown Vic's because they need a big, junk car that they can ram into things if need be, and they need a V-8.

Plus, Ford parts are cheap since they break down every other day of the week. Ford parts are abundant and cheap. Why smash up a good car like a Camry when you can smash up a Ford?

If they were going for reliability and longevity, they'd be buying Toyota's.

22nd Aug 2008, 22:42

One hard hit to the front will instantly disable the flimsy Camry. It could never be used the way the Crown Victorias are. I've seen Crown Victoria police cars broadside a car and push it over 200 feet SIDEWAYS without even slowing the Ford down or damaging it.

My brother-in-law is a police officer and he said the main reason for using the big Fords is that they are tough, virtually unstoppable, and SELDOM EVER NEED REPAIRS. That is somewhat different from "breaking down every other day".

I've known guys who bought used Crown Victoria police cars with over 100,000 miles on them and drove them ANOTHER 100,000 miles with no problems.

A Camry police car? How about a Moped. It would be about as effective.

2nd Sep 2008, 06:19

Can we get back to something resembling a point? I seriously doubt anybody wanting to read about a Hyundai Accent cares much about a gas guzzling Crown Vic., not to mention it's a Ford, so who cares.

Good luck to the last commenter trying to get people to buy a Crown Victoria instead of a Camry, the best selling car in America 10 years running. I'll agree that if you plan to crash into people on a regular basis, the Crown Vic will do the job. The rest of us who would like something to keep over the years will do better with a Toyota, or even a Hyundai.

By the way, the Accent has a little over 4000 miles on it and is getting around 35 or 36 mpg every tank. I've seen nothing under 34 since the engine broke in, and got a little over 38 at best. I'm fully satisfied with this car to date. Still not quite a Honda though. Then again, neither was the pricetag.

My girlfriend's father just found a 2000 Civic hatchback with 175,000 miles on it. It's getting 39 mpg or better almost all the time. Over 40 regularly. If you're reading here with the intent of buying a compact car and want to spend a few thousand more than I did for the Hyundai, buy the Honda Fit. It's a Honda, enough said.

2nd Sep 2008, 10:12

GM's 4-cylinder compacts get 36mpg+ highway, come with a 100,000 mile warranty and a price tag several thousand less than Civic. Why would anyone want to spend thousands more on a car with a far worse warranty and no better fuel mileage?

The Ford Fusion, which has had a greater increase in sales than Civic and Corolla combined, gets equally good mileage, has a better warranty than Civic or Corolla and costs about 5 grand less than the Civic and about the same as the Corolla. It does not make a great deal of sense to try and save money on gas by paying 5 grand MORE for a car.

And don't bother with the "It will cost more in repairs" line, because repeated requests for evidence of better reliability for imports has gone unanswered, and a 100,000 mile warranty pretty much takes away any threat of reliability issues, as most people trade cars before 100,000 miles, regardless of what they drive.

3rd Sep 2008, 18:29

10:12 Okay, where to begin... first off, GM doesn't and never has made a car that gets the kind of mileage that a Civic or a Corolla, or even a rusted out 1992 Toyota Tercel gets. Civics, even the ones with 250,000 miles on them, generally get at or above 40 mpg. GM can't, or for sure hasn't, designed an engine on par with a Honda or Toyota.

And don't tell me about the Aveo either because my aunt bought a new one this year; it gets around 31 or 32.

My new Hyundai Accent gets 34 worst and has done as well as 38. Now, Toyota and Honda are in a league by themselves. My 1993 Tercel, that I owned and sold in 1994 got about 40 to 43. And I ran it with no regard for fuel mileage, even though I always have calculated it.

My girlfriend's 95' Civic gets 40 regularly, as does her Dad's 2000 Civic. Nothing Ford or Chevy makes will do this regularly. Maybe you can say you did it if you coasted down a mountain and towed it back up. Otherwise, forget it.

Funny how GM guys are always up on the warranty; I guess they need it. As a Toyota owner, I never have. AND, it is nothing more than your opinion that people get rid of their cars at or before 100,000 miles. You must be talking about Ford/GM owners; that makes sense, because the cars are generally junk at that point, and worth nothing on trade in. For a Toyota or Honda owner, 100,000 is just good and broken in. Many, many trouble free miles to go.