Bought my last Honda.

I am on my sixth Honda. In a row.   Bought it new in 2006.

Today the alternator went and I'm out nearly 400 bills.

Ok the car is six years old and maybe that's reasonable life for an alternator.

But I've come to expect more.  Hondas just aren't the best cars made anymore.

Hyundai? Or something, here I come.

Actually who am I kidding. The sucker is paid off, and I don't have the cash for another car payment.  

But the next car will be somethin' else.

Harv, how many miles does it have on it?

Yea, like snowballs asked, how many miles? An alternator blowing at least once during a vehicle's life is to be expected no matter what make or model you buy.

As for Hyundai, they are getting a lot of good marks lately. But having test driven an Elantra this past summer, I was surprised to find it completely unappealing on the inside and overall. It went from a high probability to bottom of the list very quickly. Your mileage may vary.

You want AWD for the Cabin driveway, right? Might as well go with an Outback or Forester when you decided to upgrade. I don't think you're going to find much better regarding long term maintenance costs, though. All cars break and Honda has always had a good rep in that department.

6 years ..400 dollar repair isn't bad at all.. Honda is still a great engineered car, they are just cutting too many corners (quality plastics, noise insulation ) to increase their profits.

Hyundai is good vehicle, I just found their SUV's lacking in space. The design is geared more towards style rather than function..

I'm very happy with my Subie so far...

JasonWx wrote

The design is geared more towards style rather than function..

That's my issue with the newest CRV design.  That rear quarter panel window is a joke.   The new model had a marginal (maybe 1 mpg?) improvement in EPA ratings, and while it's listed at the same cargo space it's less usable.

I must say the design/shape of the older design (ending in 2006) is brilliant.  We had a 1998 CRV - it had lower EPA ratings, less power and significantly less cargo space. It's actually easier to load ski gear for THREE in the 2006 than it was to load gear for two in the 1998.

Also in the I must say category ... our 98 was eight years old when we sold it and we got $10k for it FROM THE DEALER.  That took a significant bite out of the payment for the new one.

Our current vehicle has 60 something thousand miles on it. (I'll look later for an exact number).  I guess that's reasonable for an alternator.  

My big issue really isn't the manufactures fault - I think.  My cars rust like crazy. Because I don't drive them.  We sold the 1998 with 80k on it because our mechanic told us the underside wasn't looking good. It looked cherry from the top and I'm sure that's why the dealer gave us a good price. It's the only real downside of walking to work.  Current vehicle design assumes you are going to drive a car every day. If you only drive it once a week, or less in the summer the brakes, exhaust, underbody - they rust like crazy.  Zelda drives a Honda too, and drives it every day. No rust issues at all.

I had to get my rear rotors replaced on my 2008 Scion recently after 62,000 miles: $500. The front ones could probably use replacement too, so there's another $500.  And, over the past winter (when I only had about 48,000 miles), I had this problem, which they wanted $1000 to fix.  Somehow, that seems to have fixed itself, but it seems as though some sensors in the hub get affected by the road salt, so it may pop up again this winter (when the problem occurs, the traction control, anti lock brakes and vehicle stability control stop working - nice time of year for all that to happen).

Add in the $400 charge for the 30,000 mile maintenance (where I don't think they really did anything), and that's about $2500 in maintenance costs over 3 years for a $15,000 car.  I thought that since Scion was made by Toyota, then it would be reliable.  Turns out it's not.

Definitely need AWD to get up the driveway. I'm a disappointed that there haven't been more MPG improvements in AWD vehicles. Even if Honda made a SUV hybrid, all my miles are highway so it doesn't help much.

MC2 - the scheduled maintenance intervals are a total rip off.  I have a great (cheap too) mechanic who does those services for me now. The 30/60k Honda services are $525 from the dealer, and include almost no parts (oil and filter). My guy all did the 30k service for $65.

Just looked at the mileage for the CRV - just short of 70k - 69,900.

Bill for the alternator - $350.  Al gave me the invoice from the supplier. $310 for the part, no markup, $40 to install.

Pretty sweet.

Does it always seem like found money just disappears?  Last weekend Zelda noticed that I had a buildup of "points" on my credit card. We redeemed for $350 and the check came today. Easy come easy go.

JasonWx wrote

Hyundai is good vehicle, I just found their SUV's lacking in space.

The only thing keeping me from selling my Santa Fe right now is I love how much stuff I can put in there. Currently I have a bike (with both wheels on), Rafting gear, climbing gear, cameras and lenses, and some camping gear in there. Last weekend was all that, plus some tools and another bike. And a ton of clothes.

I've had a kayak and corresponding gear in there before.

In winter mode, expect at least 3 pairs of skis and my outerwear.

Driving a couple hundred miles a week and only getting 19 MPG highway is getting to be pretty cumbersome though.

FWIW, my Mother-In-Law owned a series of Subarus, as she spends her winters in snow country.  When it was time to replace her last Subaru, she decided to switch it up and purchased a CR-V.  She said there is no comparison between the AWD on the two cars:the Subaru system is dramatically better in the snow. She cannot wait to go back to a Subaru.

Goreskimom wrote

FWIW, my Mother-In-Law owned a series of Subarus, as she spends her winters in snow country.  When it was time to replace her last Subaru, she decided to switch it up and purchased a CR-V.  She said there is no comparison between the AWD on the two cars:the Subaru system is dramatically better in the snow. She cannot wait to go back to a Subaru.

IMO this is the crux of the trade-off between the Sube and the CRV. Or at least I thought it was until I saw reports here of 32 and 35 mpg for the Sube.

The Subie is true full-time AWD.  All four wheels are being driven constantly and symmetrically.  This gives much better traction, at (theoretically) an MPG cost.  All the Subes I've ever "known"  got about the same MPG as a CRV 27-30 highway. But they were also a smaller car, with less cargo space.

The CRV is basically a front wheel drive car, that only sends power to the rear wheels, when the front slips. And when the power goes to the rear, is not as good for traction. It's really more like 3 wheel drive as the rear differential is a traditional one.

If Subies are getting 32 or 35, and a Forrester has the cargo space of a CRV then that would definitely be my choice.  Can't fit the family and ski gear into an Outback.

Harv, The key to the Subies mileage is the CVT transmission..As of now the Forrester doesn't have a CVT option. I'm sure that will change in the future..

Harvey44 wrote

Can't fit the family and ski gear into an Outback.

Have you looked at the new Outback? It's humungous. When we bought our Legacy wagon way back in '96, it actually had more cargo capacity than the Forester of that time and still does. With the rear seats lowered, the base model 2011 Forester has 68.3 cu. ft. of cargo space (upgraded versions have 63 for some reason). The 2011 Outback has 71.3 cu. ft. of space with the seats down. Now you wouldn't be driving with both rear seats down but you get the point. The CR-V has 72.9. OK, so what takes up 1.6 cu. ft.?  According to the mnfr. sites, the Outback actually gets slightly better mileage than a 4WD CR-V.

I just drove a 2011 Forester for a couple of days while my Impreza was in the shop getting a bodywork-related recall fixed (painting required, long story, no biggie). While I could see the value of a car like this for some people, I found driving the thing very un-inspirational, much like driving a cushy small tank. Pretty sketchy on the twisties too. I would expect that the Outback would be more fun (and car-like) to drive, which for me at least, is important. The Subaru safety factor is impressive as well.

If you are not against a used car, take a look at the previous version of the Outback. Much better looking car IMHO. I spied this 2007 turbocharged beauty at the dealer and was tempted to trade in the Impreza:

Sick Bird Rider wrote

.....so what takes up 1.6 cu. ft.?

Lunch.

We'll always have both of our back seat in the upright position. We use the entire front seat for cargo.  That setup works out for us for a number of reasons.

I remember in 2006 when we looked at the Outback and the CRV. As I recall cargo numbers were identical on the spec sheets. (35 sq feet? I forget).  But when Zelda and I looked in the back ... I can't explain it. We just could not envision fitting our stuff in the back of the Outback.  The cargo areas are shaped differently for sure. The CRV is deeper and taller, so I guess it must not be as long front to back.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

Have you looked at the new Outback? It's humungous.

IMO Subaru has lost it's way with the new Outback. It's got everything a huge (OK midsize) SUV has except the extra space. It reminds me of a Nissan Murano. Lots of extra weight, big wheels, but not much extra usability. Would be curious to know the increase in weight and cargo space over the previous model.

Of course all of this reflects my personal priorities. I don't care about acceleration or handling beyond what is safe. I want a low cost, high mpg, reliable, durable, efficient cargo mover that can get up our driveway in the mountains. YMMV.

bought a 2011 outback last october. it's my 5th subuaru. it's different than my last 2004 outback in many ways,however, it gets great milage ( 32.8 mpg to/from pittsburgh ) and about 25 mpg combined around town. it has more storage room inside than old outback. my complaint is that it has become too suburbanized/sissified. it lost the hatch grab handle which i loved. but i still think that it is the best bang for the buck ski car around. for under 30 k you get a great car.
frk

There may well be a Subie in my future. Zelda wants me to take some dynamite to our driveway to reduce the excitement level when we are driving up and down.  I'm convinced that a Subaru would eliminate this excitement.

A guy that I work with has a 2011 Outback. I was peeking in the window checking out the rear cargo space (behind the seat), and it looks like two large suitcases would fill up the space.  I can't imagine how that space measures the same as a 2006 CRV.

So he comes out and finds me with my nose pressed up against his window and asks me "what's up?"

I told him my story and then asked him the highway mileage. He tells me "high twenties, like maybe 28."  And he has the CVT trans.

On the other hand, EPA on it is 22/29 so I'd expect mileage in the low 30s on the highway. With every car I've ever owned, I was able to beat the EPA highway estimate. My CRV is rated at 26 highway and I could squeeze out 28 in the winter and 30 in the summer.

i lived with corrolla for 9 years..i used to go sking with my 2 girls, skis in the car along with all the equipment and overnight stuff.. i'm sure if you pack neatly you should have no problem..

the legacy gets better mileage, i don't know why..maybe less weight?

We have a 2000 Outback Wagon. 213k miles, drives beautifully, no repairs other than maintenance and rides on rails in the snow.  It is the oldest car in our fleet and we fight over who gets to drive it.  If you are really trying to max out your mileage, how about a manual transmission in an Outback wagon?

Harv, don't even consider a Hyundai. They have a great warranty for a reason -- you're gonna need it. I had a '06 Tucson with lockable 4WD and snows. The transmission died at 67,000. It was nowhere near as good as my 2000 CR-V was in the snow. Even my '93 Camry with snows was better.

Subarus can't be beat in the snow by anything short of an Audi. But will you enjoy driving the Subaru when you don't need the snow traction? If yes, then get a Subaru.

Really appreciate all the good input in this thread.

The thing that is so odd about our needs is that the AWD - is really only critical on the last 500 feet up the drive, and when I storm chasing (usually solo).  Problem is that if I can't get up the drive, the car is vulnerable to be whacked by the plow, and I have to make a TON of trips when the ladies are with me.

One hidden cost of our cabin - because it lacks any real storage and some of the basics like washer/dryer - we basically bring EVERYTHING we need to live and ski, on every trip. Hence the obsession with cargo room.

One compromise we've started to make that saves us a bundle - we now leave our skis in the mountains. Without the roofbox we can get 28 mpg vs about 22 or 23 with it.  Down side is that when I hit the Catskills for a day trip, I'm on my second string skis.

Sponge: What's the down side of driving the Sube every day?  I don't drive every day - mostly just on the weekends - but still would like to know.