2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>
> I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
> reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
> of when new have big stuff fall off later.
Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
I think design has more to do with long-term durability and assembly
more to do with initial quality perception.
Matt
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>
> I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
> reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
> of when new have big stuff fall off later.
Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
I think design has more to do with long-term durability and assembly
more to do with initial quality perception.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
clear.
Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
;-)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Sonata has had no real assembly defects, but has several design
>>defects that we'd discussed before here.
>
>I think there is probably a correlation between build quality and long term
>reliability. Certainly not 1:1, but usually cars that little stuff falls off
>of when new have big stuff fall off later.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
> Increasing quality on parts allowed increasing automation that
> provided lower cost to fund increasing quality on parts to fund more
> automation etc. Only use people where machines can't do the work. Its
> a nice circle compared to a lot of cost acutting I've seen.
>
> Second - focus on the major problems. As they put it - small things
> annoy people but they can ignore them until they can get them fixed as
> long as when they put the key in the car starts and goes somewhere.
>
> That seems to be my experience and what I keep seeing here. Ford an
> Chevy are worrying about transmissions or engines, Hyundai owners
> complain about thumps in the trunk. I'll take the thump.
My experience has been much the opposite. I've found American designed
and assembled cars to be well designed, but often not well assembled.
I've found my Sonata to be well assembled, but not as well designed in
several areas. Personally, I'd like a well designed AND well assembled
car, as I think we all would. However, if I have to give on one, I'd
rather give on assembly quality before giving on design quality. Either
the dealer can correct the assembly issues or I can often correct them
myself. It is almost impossible to correct a design problem in the field.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Any chance you recall the name of the show? I'd like to see that
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Any chance you recall the name of the show? I'd like to see that
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Any chance you recall the name of the show? I'd like to see that
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
story.
nothermark wrote:
> Interestingly I was just watching part of a story on the Hyundai plant
> in the US on the History channel. Two things came through loud and
> clear.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
>
>
I don't think that. I have five new cars worth of data! :-)
To me it is the difference between design and assembly. They are two
different things and have quite different ramifications.
My 84 Accord was fairly trouble-free at first, although it did have two
recalls, but at about 60,000 miles it began to self-destruct and at
80,000 miles the top end of the engine failed (cam and all 16 rocker
arms). I traded it off at 90,000 miles for an 89 Acclaim. It is the
only car I've owned that didn't make 100,000 miles. The Acclaim wasn't
assembled as nicely as the Honda and had a few more teething problems,
but that car was the most reliable and durable car I've ever owned. It
still had the original exhaust system on it when my wife hit a deer with
it and totaled it when it was 9 years old and had 143,000 miles on it.
The Honda needed a complete exhaust system, including converter, at just
over 60,000 miles. It also needed new rotors and drums then as well as
the originals were rusted so badly they couldn't even be turned!
Same with my 86 Jeep Comanche. Had a few teething problems, but was
durable as could be after that. I ran it 9 years and sold it to my
father-in-law when I bought my 94 Chevy pickup. He ran it 10 more years
and gave it back to me right before he died two years ago. I STILL use
it for off-road work now as it is rusted too badly to pass inspection.
My Sonata has had virtually no teething problems, just like my Accord,
although it has had several "recalls" already, just like my Accord. I'm
just hoping that it doesn't fall apart at 60-80,000 miles like my
Accord! I take some comfort knowing that Chrysler had a hand in the
engine design as I've had great luck with Chrysler engines, starting
with a slant-6 in a 1976 Dodge Truck. I'm worried about the clutch and
transmission, especially the clutch. It is a bugger to start out with
the too tall first gear and too sensitive electronic throttle without
slipping the clutch a lot more than I like. However, if you don't, then
you risk stalling as I've don't way too many times.
Matt
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
>
>
I don't think that. I have five new cars worth of data! :-)
To me it is the difference between design and assembly. They are two
different things and have quite different ramifications.
My 84 Accord was fairly trouble-free at first, although it did have two
recalls, but at about 60,000 miles it began to self-destruct and at
80,000 miles the top end of the engine failed (cam and all 16 rocker
arms). I traded it off at 90,000 miles for an 89 Acclaim. It is the
only car I've owned that didn't make 100,000 miles. The Acclaim wasn't
assembled as nicely as the Honda and had a few more teething problems,
but that car was the most reliable and durable car I've ever owned. It
still had the original exhaust system on it when my wife hit a deer with
it and totaled it when it was 9 years old and had 143,000 miles on it.
The Honda needed a complete exhaust system, including converter, at just
over 60,000 miles. It also needed new rotors and drums then as well as
the originals were rusted so badly they couldn't even be turned!
Same with my 86 Jeep Comanche. Had a few teething problems, but was
durable as could be after that. I ran it 9 years and sold it to my
father-in-law when I bought my 94 Chevy pickup. He ran it 10 more years
and gave it back to me right before he died two years ago. I STILL use
it for off-road work now as it is rusted too badly to pass inspection.
My Sonata has had virtually no teething problems, just like my Accord,
although it has had several "recalls" already, just like my Accord. I'm
just hoping that it doesn't fall apart at 60-80,000 miles like my
Accord! I take some comfort knowing that Chrysler had a hand in the
engine design as I've had great luck with Chrysler engines, starting
with a slant-6 in a 1976 Dodge Truck. I'm worried about the clutch and
transmission, especially the clutch. It is a bugger to start out with
the too tall first gear and too sensitive electronic throttle without
slipping the clutch a lot more than I like. However, if you don't, then
you risk stalling as I've don't way too many times.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Hyundai quality report from J D Powers
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
>
>
I don't think that. I have five new cars worth of data! :-)
To me it is the difference between design and assembly. They are two
different things and have quite different ramifications.
My 84 Accord was fairly trouble-free at first, although it did have two
recalls, but at about 60,000 miles it began to self-destruct and at
80,000 miles the top end of the engine failed (cam and all 16 rocker
arms). I traded it off at 90,000 miles for an 89 Acclaim. It is the
only car I've owned that didn't make 100,000 miles. The Acclaim wasn't
assembled as nicely as the Honda and had a few more teething problems,
but that car was the most reliable and durable car I've ever owned. It
still had the original exhaust system on it when my wife hit a deer with
it and totaled it when it was 9 years old and had 143,000 miles on it.
The Honda needed a complete exhaust system, including converter, at just
over 60,000 miles. It also needed new rotors and drums then as well as
the originals were rusted so badly they couldn't even be turned!
Same with my 86 Jeep Comanche. Had a few teething problems, but was
durable as could be after that. I ran it 9 years and sold it to my
father-in-law when I bought my 94 Chevy pickup. He ran it 10 more years
and gave it back to me right before he died two years ago. I STILL use
it for off-road work now as it is rusted too badly to pass inspection.
My Sonata has had virtually no teething problems, just like my Accord,
although it has had several "recalls" already, just like my Accord. I'm
just hoping that it doesn't fall apart at 60-80,000 miles like my
Accord! I take some comfort knowing that Chrysler had a hand in the
engine design as I've had great luck with Chrysler engines, starting
with a slant-6 in a 1976 Dodge Truck. I'm worried about the clutch and
transmission, especially the clutch. It is a bugger to start out with
the too tall first gear and too sensitive electronic throttle without
slipping the clutch a lot more than I like. However, if you don't, then
you risk stalling as I've don't way too many times.
Matt
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually, I've had just the opposite experience. I've found that cars
>>with little problems tend to not have big problems and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Matt, why did I know you would think the opposite?
>
>
I don't think that. I have five new cars worth of data! :-)
To me it is the difference between design and assembly. They are two
different things and have quite different ramifications.
My 84 Accord was fairly trouble-free at first, although it did have two
recalls, but at about 60,000 miles it began to self-destruct and at
80,000 miles the top end of the engine failed (cam and all 16 rocker
arms). I traded it off at 90,000 miles for an 89 Acclaim. It is the
only car I've owned that didn't make 100,000 miles. The Acclaim wasn't
assembled as nicely as the Honda and had a few more teething problems,
but that car was the most reliable and durable car I've ever owned. It
still had the original exhaust system on it when my wife hit a deer with
it and totaled it when it was 9 years old and had 143,000 miles on it.
The Honda needed a complete exhaust system, including converter, at just
over 60,000 miles. It also needed new rotors and drums then as well as
the originals were rusted so badly they couldn't even be turned!
Same with my 86 Jeep Comanche. Had a few teething problems, but was
durable as could be after that. I ran it 9 years and sold it to my
father-in-law when I bought my 94 Chevy pickup. He ran it 10 more years
and gave it back to me right before he died two years ago. I STILL use
it for off-road work now as it is rusted too badly to pass inspection.
My Sonata has had virtually no teething problems, just like my Accord,
although it has had several "recalls" already, just like my Accord. I'm
just hoping that it doesn't fall apart at 60-80,000 miles like my
Accord! I take some comfort knowing that Chrysler had a hand in the
engine design as I've had great luck with Chrysler engines, starting
with a slant-6 in a 1976 Dodge Truck. I'm worried about the clutch and
transmission, especially the clutch. It is a bugger to start out with
the too tall first gear and too sensitive electronic throttle without
slipping the clutch a lot more than I like. However, if you don't, then
you risk stalling as I've don't way too many times.
Matt