Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
 

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:43:57 GMT, Dave Kelsen <kelsen@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:

>
>I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
>of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
>uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
>word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.

I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.

Nate