10 New Cars to Avoid

[SpunkyJones]

I don't know anyone who has 100,000 miles on their odometer

My Toyota Sequoia has 187,000 miles on it and my wife's car is up around 140,000.

 

[Murloc]

so according to the list american, volvo and cheapo-japanese cars suck. Big news.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Well... 100k is a lot. (assuming you mean 100,000 miles and not 100 kilometres)

100,000 miles on a car isn't anywhere near "a lot." People in the US average close to 13,500 miles per year (more for men, fewer for women). The average car in the US will hit 100,000 miles when it's only about 7 years old.

If a modern car cannot reliably hit 150,000 miles, there's something glaringly wrong with the design.

To be fair to Volvo though, the problems only exist in the T6 variants of the XC90 and are the result of deficiencies in the GM-built 4T65-E transmission. Versions of the XC90 with the Aisin transmissions are fine.

ZV

 

[Bignate603]

100,000 miles on a car isn't anywhere near "a lot." People in the US average close to 13,500 miles per year (more for men, fewer for women). The average car in the US will hit 100,000 miles when it's only about 7 years old.

If a modern car cannot reliably hit 150,000 miles, there's something glaringly wrong with the design.

To be fair to Volvo though, the problems only exist in the T6 variants of the XC90 and are the result of deficiencies in the GM-built 4T65-E transmission. Versions of the XC90 with the Aisin transmissions are fine.

ZV

Personally, I find any major drive train work before 200k is the sign of a problem. For any decent modern vehicle they should be free from engine and transmission problems for at least that long, barring any freak issue.

 

[CraigRT]

It's not uncommon in the states to see 5 year old cars with 100k on them.

At the rate I'm going I will have about 140K miles in 5 years.

 

[shortylickens]

Forbes lists it's 10 new cars to avoid due to low initial quality, poor value, and/or poor safety records.

1. Jeep Liberty/Dodge Nitro
2. Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon
3. Nissan Armada
4. GMC Sierra / Chevy Silverado 2500
5. Dodge Caliber
6. Nissan Titan
7. Smart Fortwo
8. Kia Sedona
9. Volvo XC90
10. Mercedes-Benz R-Class

Hit up the link for their reasons. None of these are really surprising to me. I've driven the Caliber, Fortwo, and Sedona. They're junky cars.
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/2322/10-new-car-clunkers-to-avoid

Numbers 1 and 2 are no surprise, and I think number 7 should be outlawed. Those things are death traps and just about every reputable reviewer has said so.

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't know anyone who has 100,000 miles on their odometer

This would certainly explain why European cars suck so hard. They're built to last 10 years in Europe which translates to maybe 5 years in the US.

 

[HAL9000]

My Toyota Sequoia has 187,000 miles on it and my wife's car is up around 140,000.

Wow.

100,000 miles on a car isn't anywhere near "a lot." People in the US average close to 13,500 miles per year (more for men, fewer for women). The average car in the US will hit 100,000 miles when it's only about 7 years old.

If a modern car cannot reliably hit 150,000 miles, there's something glaringly wrong with the design.

To be fair to Volvo though, the problems only exist in the T6 variants of the XC90 and are the result of deficiencies in the GM-built 4T65-E transmission. Versions of the XC90 with the Aisin transmissions are fine.

ZV

Wowzer. Most people I know wouldn't buy a car with 100,000 miles on it and when it gets to 100,000 it's time to sell.... But yeah I guess the UK is a lot smaller.

 

[HAL9000]

This would certainly explain why European cars suck so hard. They're built to last 10 years in Europe which translates to maybe 5 years in the US.

I laughed.

 

[Bignate603]

Wowzer. Most people I know wouldn't buy a car with 100,000 miles on it and when it gets to 100,000 it's time to sell.... But yeah I guess the UK is a lot smaller.

That explains some of the times that I've heard Topgear talk about used car prices. I've always thought the resale values that they've quoted to be insanely low.

I've gotten my last few vehicles at over 100k miles, there's still plenty of trouble free life left in them.

 

[HAL9000]

That explains some of the times that I've heard Topgear talk about used car prices. I've always thought the resale values that they've quoted to be insanely low.

I've gotten my last few vehicles at over 100k miles, there's still plenty of trouble free life left in them.

Yeah over here if it's over about 80k then me and people I know would stay away. Most cars over here after about 10 years would probably have done 60,000 miles or something. E.g. my Dad got his car about 8 years ago and it's on 45k.

 

[ElFenix]

Yeah over here if it's over about 80k then me and people I know would stay away. Most cars over here after about 10 years would probably have done 60,000 miles or something. E.g. my Dad got his car about 8 years ago and it's on 45k.

i would imagine with nearly everyone having sizeable yards and carports or garages here, it's much more common to do your own work as well. that helps drive down the cost and drive up the reliability of old cars.

 

[foghorn67]

4 of the top 5 are American, no surprise there

And 1of those 4 is actually an import rebadged. Isuzu's.
Now you're down to three.

Surprised now?

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Well... 100k is a lot. (assuming you mean 100,000 miles and not 100 kilometres)

Nope, most decent cars should go at least 150k before needing a serious repair like that.

The Silverado 2500 suprised me, GM usually has good trucks.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Personally, I find any major drive train work before 200k is the sign of a problem. For any decent modern vehicle they should be free from engine and transmission problems for at least that long, barring any freak issue.

I'm giving a good bit of leeway because of the number of people who just plain don't take care of their vehicles. For example, the people who never change their brake fluid or who never replace the fluid in their automatic transmission (I don't care what manufacturers say, there's no such thing as a "lifetime" transmission fluid) aren't going to get 200,000 miles of reliable service even though it's not the car's fault.

ZV

 

[BUTCH1]

I'm giving a good bit of leeway because of the number of people who just plain don't take care of their vehicles. For example, the people who never change their brake fluid or who never replace the fluid in their automatic transmission (I don't care what manufacturers say, there's no such thing as a "lifetime" transmission fluid) aren't going to get 200,000 miles of reliable service even though it's not the car's fault.

ZV

GM claims the dexcool can run to 5 yrs/100K but I changed it at 3 yrs 33K, brake fluid is supposed to be of a design that mitigates most hygroscopic intrusion, I don't trust that, I bleed calipers every brake pad change. Tranny fluid is 100K change or 50K severe service, I consider FL heat "severe service", changed it @50K. Fluids are cheap and IMO well worth the effort to change early..

 

[waggy]

We're considering a Fiesta and will be comparing it against what we can get in the Focus. The difference though between the fiesta and focus for the SE hatchback of each is $4k, not exactly trivial.

for the last month i have driven a fiesta and focus. the focus is slightly larger and nicer.

gas mileage didn't seem a difference between the two.

I'm not knocking the Fiesta its a nice little car. But the price difference is close enough i think i would go with a focus. seen the price less then 3k in a few dealerships.

 

[zCypher]

I'm giving a good bit of leeway because of the number of people who just plain don't take care of their vehicles. For example, the people who never change their brake fluid or who never replace the fluid in their automatic transmission (I don't care what manufacturers say, there's no such thing as a "lifetime" transmission fluid) aren't going to get 200,000 miles of reliable service even though it's not the car's fault.

ZV

This. All of my parents' cars throughout my childhood easily surpassed 300,000km (ok not miles but still a lot of mileage!), none had any engine or transmission failure ever. Almost all of my avoidable car maintenance has been totally due to my negligence, but even then I've never had any engine or transmission failure. Every car I've experienced across many different brands foreign and domestic, have all been rock solid. I always bitch about it just the same, cause even regular maintenance costs money when you don't do it yourself. But let's be realistic, there's no excuse when it comes to those major components.

I think you have to catch a particularly unlucky vehicle or just plain be a terrible car owner to have serious failures at 50 and 100 thousand miles.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I think you have to catch a particularly unlucky vehicle or just plain be a terrible car owner to have serious failures at 50 and 100 thousand miles.

No, there are some that have legitimate design issues. For example, the XC90 T6 models that used the GM 4T65-E transmission were going to have issues regardless of how well they were treated; the transmission just wasn't strong enough for the vehicle (high-torque engine in a heavy vehicle). Or, to pick on Volvo a bit again, the PCV system in the early-ish T5 engines, which tends to need cleaning every 50,000 to 75,000 miles or it clogs and the crankcase pressure blows out the rear main seal. Honda had an issue with the transmissions in the early Pilots as well.

There are definitely specific cars that are "unlucky" where the uncommon does happen, but there are also unquestionably whole batches where the engineering is bad.

ZV

 

[waggy]

This. All of my parents' cars throughout my childhood easily surpassed 300,000km (ok not miles but still a lot of mileage!), none had any engine or transmission failure ever. Almost all of my avoidable car maintenance has been totally due to my negligence, but even then I've never had any engine or transmission failure. Every car I've experienced across many different brands foreign and domestic, have all been rock solid. I always bitch about it just the same, cause even regular maintenance costs money when you don't do it yourself. But let's be realistic, there's no excuse when it comes to those major components.

I think you have to catch a particularly unlucky vehicle or just plain be a terrible car owner to have serious failures at 50 and 100 thousand miles.

i agree. i hit one (look at my thread in teh garage heh).

I always buy used. i can afford a new car but growing up on a car lot and seeing how bad you lose out when you do (and being a cheap ass) i prefer used. Also i have had some damn good cars over the years.

usually get them with 79-100k miles and sale them at 180k or so. Even then i get a grand or so for them.

 

[HeXen]

you forgot the Juke.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't know anyone who has 100,000 miles on their odometer

Is that because your gov penalizes older cars?

 

[HAL9000]

Is that because your gov penalizes older cars?

No... They dont... With the exception of a couple of local councils that won't let you drive into the centre of their constituency if your car is over a certain age....

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I don't know anyone who has 100,000 miles on their odometer

In miles:
1989 Isuzu Trooper - 140k, dead, engine block crack
1994 Plymouth Grand Voyager - 191k, dead, transmission gave out
1995 BMW 540i - 145k, alive, in great mechanical shape
2001 BMW 330i - 190k, alive, in great mechanical and cosmetic shape.

My 1999 Jag XJ VP is going to be breaking 100k in a year or so, currently at 93k.

Americans have to drive farther.

XC90 being built poorly surprises me. I usually associate Volvos with good quality, especially their older cars.

 

[HeXen]

No... They dont... With the exception of a couple of local councils that won't let you drive into the centre of their constituency if your car is over a certain age....

hell my wife has 153,000 on her 2000 concorde. we got trucks at work with well over 300,000 miles. but sounds like your local councils has some mental issues