Well, preference for a manual transmission isn't pro or con any particular car maker. It's about as germane to this discussion as being willing to drive a car with no A/C.
I'm pro car. I don't really care who makes the car, be it a traditional US automaker, or a foreign auto maker. I've owned like numbers of products from both car makers. I've owned from all three domestic car makers, as well as Honda, BMW, Toyota and Mazda if I recall correctly.
I freely admit that I'm an all Toyota household right now. Yet I entertain some of the offerings from Ford and GM as well as Toyota when I go to add another car to the fleet in about a year when the 15 year old starts driving.
We shopped minivan's in December, and in that particular market, for about $14K, the 2002 Sienna XLE came up much better than like priced 2005-2007 Dodge/Chrysler vans as well as the Honda Odyssey. The prices and equipment was about the same. Some of the newer vans at that price had less equipment, but were really in no better shape.
We ended up with the older Sienna, loaded with everything, traction control, leather seats with bun-warmers, moonroof, DVD system, etc because this van at 67K miles still didn't squeek or rattle in the interior. The only minor noise was the rear brakes squeeking, which is a common problem for these, corrected by an updated brake drum.
It would be hard to call me a fanatical, anti-domestic buyer, as I've pretty much simply said these vehicles work the best for me and my family.
My bias against automatic transmissions has more to do with a personal preference to being in control of the car, as well as way too many bad experiences with automatic transmissions that needed costly repairs before 100K miles.
It certainly wasn't from a lack of maintenance either in any case.
Originally Posted By: Kernel Potter
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Which is almost meaningless the way you approached it.
First, you cite SOME number, but say it's not complete, but fail to give any comparative figures for any other car maker.
You bias is exposed, not to mention your methodology flawed.
A better stat would be to look at engines, not cars, as the same engine may be installed in any number of vehicles, and to look at all of the engines for a number of car makers to give a valid comparison.
For all we know, it could be the same engine in those 5 vehicles, and out of all of Hondas engines, only one was impacted by the change in how torque is measured.
Plus, you have to prove that the engine was not changed from the previous year. If you cannot prove that, then your statement is is totally worthless, and in my opinion, simply demonstrates your bias against Honda.
After all, you didn't do the same sorts of research for other brands that you may view more favorably. It appears you found what appeared to you to be a negative, and then stopped doing research, by your own admission.
So it appears your mind is already made up. Which is fine, it's your money.
But I simply want to point out that your criticism is by no stretch of the imagination, objective or balanced.
Javacontour, it's quite hilarious how you hold me to being unscientific regarding my observations on Honda advertised hp figures. There's two strong issues here. (1.)More strict testing by the SAE because they knew they were being played. Not to mention auto companies were being sued for those published figures.
(2.)Horsepower figures going down the very next year in a way not seen since the Gross hp to SAE conversion in 1972. A VERY strong correlation to my claims.
Yet look at the way you've gone on about holding me accountable for my observations and theory. The extent and detail you have gone to in your post makes it look like you're a lawyer working for Honda. It appears you're the one with the serious bias issues. Just look at the fanatical bias in your signature.
