car experts- I need your advice on buying a new car

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kalius
The Mustang: 10000 parts all manufactured by the lowest bidder.

What a piece of garbage. Should have bought a real car.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=iqs&story=iqsCar&referer=advice

The Mustang was runner up for the highest quality sporty car under $30k. Please admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The quality is very high and instead you're whining about differences in design choices. You're free to like apples but realize some people like oranges.

[Frozzy]

The quality is not high for a V8 sports car which produces 300+bhp.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kalius

You don't get the point I'm making though. Why buy a car with a V8 engine when it is going to be used at low revs?

Because even at low revs a 300 HP 4.5L engine is going to pack a whole lot of punch. Ford basically does this because it is dirt cheap to manufacture an engine like this, it is very reliable, and the people who are buying them don't care if it burns a bit more gas. It does get 19 city and 25 highway though so it isn't like it is a huge gas waster. Especially when you consider the guy just spent $28k to get a 300 HP car which is actually very sporty. Sure, you can buy a $35k-$45k which does have all the bells and whistles and goes just as fast but that isn't the market Ford is going after with the Mustang. They're offering ban for the buck here. They're selling a fast car for33% less then other people are selling a car which can go a similiar speed.

That 33% price reduction does have a trade off though in that they have to cut expenses some where. If the guy wants to pay extra to get the twin cam multivalve engine, the multilink suspension, and the racing rated breaks then he can buy a Mustang Cobra which has it though it will cost $10k-$15k more. Again the model of Mustang Dis bought was a price point vehicle which was intended to be sold to people who wanted to go as fast as possible for under $30k. The Mustang is a market success so there must be some merit to the formula.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kalius
The quality is not high for a V8 sports car which produces 300+bhp.

OK, buddy. Do you know the difference between quality (how well something is put together) vs output per liter? How well something is put together is entirely different from what has the absolute best performance. You're original claim was that the car was not put together well (or any way that it was a piece of junk) when in reality it is a very high quality vehicle.

You've read the post about trade offs being needed to produce a car this fast at that price point, right?

[Frozzy]

Because even at low revs a 300 HP 4.5L engine is going to pack a whole lot of punch. Ford basically does this because it is dirt cheap to manufacture an engine like this, it is very reliable, and the people who are buying them don't care if it burns a bit more gas. It does get 19 city and 25 highway though so it isn't like it is a huge gas waster. Especially when you consider the guy just spent $28k to get a 300 HP car which is actually very sporty. Sure, you can buy a $35k-$45k which does have all the bells and whistles and goes just as fast but that isn't the market Ford is going after with the Mustang. They're offering ban for the buck here. They're selling a fast car for33% less then other people are selling a car which can go a similiar speed.

That 33% price reduction does have a trade off though in that they have to cut expenses some where. If the guy wants to pay extra to get the twin cam multivalve engine, the multilink suspension, and the racing rated breaks then he can buy a Mustang Cobra which has it though it will cost $10k-$15k more. Again the model of Mustang Dis bought was a price point vehicle which was intended to be sold to people who wanted to go as fast as possible for under $30k. The Mustang is a market success so there must be some merit to the formula.

The Mustang name has something to do with that I'm sure. Fact of the matter is though, it's not economically a good car to run. I don't understand why "a whole lot of punch" is needed on regular roads.

As for quality, the fact that the Mustang is 300bhp+ and a V8 means it is designed to be a sports car. But, on the other hand, it clearly can't handle the strain of being used like a sports car. The brakes aren't good enough. The materials aren't good enough for those speeds. The sheer fact that it has a low bhp for a V8, and it is sub-$30,000 means it is a car which isn't engineered to reach even average V8 performance (eg. BMW M5).

Again, going back to the original point, why spend $30,000 on a sports car which is simply a regular car with a V8 engine shoved in the front? It doesn't go any faster than a V6, it couldn't reach the speeds of a regular V8 car, and it uses more petrol than one for no performance gain.

WTF is the point?

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


OK, buddy. Do you know the difference between quality (how well something is put together) vs output per liter? How well something is put together is entirely different from what has the absolute best performance. You're original claim was that the car was not put together well (or any way that it was a piece of junk) when in reality it is a very high quality vehicle.

You've read the post about trade offs being needed to produce a car this fast at that price point, right?

I never said the car was of a low quality for road useage. I said the car was not designed to do V8 speeds in order to get it cheaper than regular V8s, and as such it used "tradeoff" parts, such as single cam, three valves, etc. Hope you understand what I was getting at with that post now.

[Jon Miller]

uhh, I thought a lot of th epoint of those type of cars was too look cool, and feel cool

and I think that for many, the Mustang handles that, even if it is not the best of sportscars

JM

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
uhh, I thought a lot of th epoint of those type of cars was too look cool, and feel cool

and I think that for many, the Mustang handles that, even if it is not the best of sportscars

JM

Ding ding ding We have a winner

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ignorance.

Believe it or not Ford and GM have very good quality

Ignorance.

As I've told you, my brother has worked for various independent engineering companies that produce parts for a variety of manufacturers: Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford to name a few. The quality requirements between Toyota/Honda and GM/Ford are night and day.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=iqs&story=iqsCar&referer=advice

The Mustang was runner up for the highest initial quality sporty car under $30k. Please admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The initial quality is very high and instead you're whining about differences in design choices. You're free to like apples but realize some people like oranges.

I have edited your post to correct it.

As I've told you many times now, the American cars are designed to last until their warranty period expires and then falls apart. Toyota and Honda design their cars with pride and to simply last, as it's their image -- their quality requirements far exceed typical usage under warranty conditions, which is contrary to American manufacturers.

This is precisely why I've repeatedly told you quality under warranty period is meaningless -- not only is it covered by the manufacturer, but it's a situation that American cars are designed to be reasonably reliable in.

Consumer Reports this year has reported that a 2 year old GM vehicle is as reliable as a 7 year old Toyota. That's huge.

[Asher]

For fun, let's look at recent Ford Mustang stats on their reliability.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2037/act/usedcarreviewreliability/

1994-2004 Ford Mustang: Reliability
Trouble Spots
Consumer Guide's® Auto Editors have scoured repair bulletins and questioned mechanics to search for commonly occurring problems for a particular vehicle. In some cases we also give possible manufacturer-suggested solutions. In many instances these trouble spots are Technical Service Bulletins posted by the manufacturer, however, we have our own expert looking at additional vehicle problems.

Accessory belt: On GT models with manual trans, the serpentine belt might come off in wet weather. A revised tensioner and water pump pulley are available. (2000-01)

Alternator belt: The drive-belt tensioner pulley or idler-pulley bearings are apt to make a squealing noise when the engine is started in cold weather. (1994-96)

Automatic transmission: The automatic transmission is notorious for shuddering or vibrating under light acceleration or when shifting between third and fourth gear above 35 mph. It requires that the transmission fluid be changed and that only Mercon fluid be used. (1994)

Automatic transmission: The transmission may slip and the engine may flare when the transmission shifts into fourth gear, which can often be traced to a bad TR/MLP sensor. (1994-95)

Blower motor: Squeaking or chirping blower motors are the result of defective brush holders. (1994)

Clutch: Clutch pedal vibration is not uncommon. Does not indicate an engine or transmission problem. (1994-01)

Coolant leak: The intake manifold on 4.6L V8 engines is prone to breakage resulting in coolant loss and possible overheating. The manufacturer is reimbursing owners who paid for fixes up to $735 and extending the warranty for others (1996-2001)

Coolant leak: The intake manifold on 4.6L V8 engines is prone to breakage resulting in coolant loss and possible overheating. The manufacturer is reimbursing owners who paid for fixes up to $735 and extending the warranty for others (1996-2001)

Hard starting: If the engine does not want to start or cranks for a long time then stalls, the idle air-control valve may be sticking. (1995-96)

Heater core: Installing a restrictor in the heater inlet hose may repair heater cores leaks. (1985-2002)

Vehicle noise: A chattering noise that can be felt coming from the rear during tight turns after highway driving is caused by a lack of friction modifier or over-shimming of the clutch packs in the Traction-Lok differential. (1994-96)

Consumer Guide® Estimated Repair Costs
This table lists costs of likely repairs for comparison with other vehicles. The dollar amount includes the cost of the part(s) and labor (based on $50 per hour) for the typical repair without extras or add-ons. Like the pricing information, replacement costs can vary widely depending on region. Expect charges at a new-car dealership to be slightly higher.
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $410
Alternator $535
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $675
Brakes $245
Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $435
Exhaust System $830
Radiator $480
Shocks and/or Struts $435
Timing Chain or Belt $215
Universal Joints $95
NHTSA Recall History
1994 GT w/power lumbar adjustment: Electrical short can result in overheating, melting, smoke, and ignition of surrounding materials.

1994-96: Tearing of bond between inner and outer hood panels during minor front-end collision can result in gap at leading edge of hood; could result in separation of outer panel.

1994-97: Replacement driver-side airbag modules might not properly deploy in a crash.

1995 w/3.8-liter or 5.0-liter engines: The engine-cooling-fan bearing can seize. Excessive heat may be generated, melting the fan-motor electrical connector, and possibly causing fan-motor components to ignite.

1995: On some cars, passenger-airbag's inflator body is cracked and may not inflate properly; also, igniter end cap can separate, causing hot gases to be released.

1995: Some outer tie-rod ends can fracture within 50,000 miles; may result in shake or shimmy and cause wheel to tuck inward or outward.

1996-01 w/manual transmission: Vehicle could move unintentionally while in "Park." Dealers will modify parking-brake control.

1998 w/V8 engine: Some cars have missing or inadequately brazed joints between fuel-rail body and mounting brackets; separation can result in leakage.

1998: Some rack-and-pinion steering gears may have damaged shaft bearings.

1998-99: Speed-control cable on certain vehicles can interfere with servo pulley, preventing throttle from returning to idle when disengaging the speed control.

1999-00 Cobra R: Ball-joint assembly could cause knuckle casting to fail. If this occurs, the lower control arm could contact the inside of the rear wheel. In some cases, steering of the vehicle could be reduced.

1999-00: Seatbelt retractor may have incorrectly formed pin shaft that could, in some circumstances, prevent seatbelt webbing from being extracted.

2000 GT (w/4.6-liter engine): A coolant-flow blockage exists at the intake manifold heater-core nipple, resulting in no coolant flow to the heater and, therefore, no warm airflow from the heater or windshield defroster.

[Arrian]

Wow. A thread where I'm in total agreement with Asher.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

means it is a car which isn't engineered to reach even average V8 performance (eg. BMW M5).

"The $85,000 car has a better engine then the $28,000 car" Seriously, of course the M5 buy can get all of the bells and whistles because he's paying 400% more to get such a car. Don't you understand the concept of comparing between like items? It's not difficult all you have to do is compare $25k-$30k cars to other cars which cost the same and not trying to compare the $28k car to the $85k. That's just stupid.

Do you not understand that money doesn't grow on trees and that if you want to make a car go fast at 1/4 the price of that M5 then you're going to have to trade off a few things. That's just the way it works. If you want the $85k car (and have the money) then buy it but don't whine that the $28k car isn't as posh as the $85k car.

BTW you were complaining about fuel economy so I'm sure you will be heart broken to learn that the BMW only gets 12 mpg city and 16 highway. The Mustang, which you complained was so fuel inefficent, actually gets you 50% further on a gallon of gas on the highway then the BMW.

[Dinner]

The fact is consumer reports routinely gets torn a new ******* for being highly subjective. They don't use real numbers and instead ask people to volunteer to fill out a survey where they rate things with such general terms as "good", "bad", "average". You just can't run a statistical quality control comparision on such generalized remarks. Unlike consumer reports J. D. Powers actually uses hard numbers direct from manufacturers and repair shops of all brands and models. There numbers are actually hard numbers and not just opinions which is why they're better at judging quality.

[Dinner]

Dp