Top 10: Which vehicles will last 200,000 miles?

[rjundi]

Accord and pickups fall into list due to sales in top 10 of all vehicles. The list was made up of vehicles for sale with >200k miles.

The large SUV's not sure except owners may want to move away from [censored] MPG. I suspect many folks hit 200k and figure why bother selling the car.

My wife/I don't think its worth effort/hassle for $5000 to dump our 2005 Legacy wagon she likes anyway. We will drive on. My guess is at 200k miles most folks feel the same.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Accord and pickups fall into list due to sales in top 10 of all vehicles. The list was made up of vehicles for sale with >200k miles.
...


My point exactly. There are a lot of shoot first, aim later replies on here. Like them or not, Honda builds a darn good car, couple that with with the fact that it sells in large volume year after year and it follows that, with a proper data sample, it would be where it is. Further, if you look at the range of model years in the data sample it encompasses more than "any modern vehicle" including ones which are much better now than they were __ years ago, or models like Fusion which didn't exist before 2006. That said, there IS something to it because if it correlated perfectly to year over year sales F-150 and Camry would be there.

 

[brages]

Originally Posted By: Burt
This article is based on vehicles listed for sale, not how many pass 200k. Work vehicles tend to be sold by businesses at high mileage. If a car makes that mileage, an owner tends to keep it til it dies.


I think it is actually how many are listed for sale AT DEALERS. As far as I can tell, iseecars doesn't scrape through craigslist listings, which is where high-mile junker cars are more likely to show up.

 

[Panzerman]

That list is BULL. Seriously, I have never seen a Ford F-250 go further than a Grand Marquis or a Lincoln Town Car with the 4.6.(We are talking gas engines here-right?) My money would be on a Ford F-150 going further than a F-250. A Silverado makes the list but a Caprice doesn't? Cops would beat the snot out of them and then Cab companies would run them another million. That article was total [censored].

 

[hypervish]

This data is gathered from cars for sale. There's a reason why these cars are for sale, more than likely there is an issue with them. Because someone wouldn't sell a car with 200k miles if it was running well, since they wouldn't make much money by selling it anyhow.

So the cars that will truly make it to 200k miles aren't even listed here, because no one wants to sell those cars.

How about gathering data from registration and inspections to see what cars have 200k miles or more, rather than gathering from what cars are being sold. The data will be a lot more accurate and a better representation of what cars are truly dependable.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Lots of GM products on that list.


Kind of important to note they are all on the same platform though.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Accord and pickups fall into list due to sales in top 10 of all vehicles. The list was made up of vehicles for sale with >200k miles.
...


My point exactly. There are a lot of shoot first, aim later replies on here. Like them or not, Honda builds a darn good car, couple that with with the fact that it sells in large volume year after year and it follows that, with a proper data sample, it would be where it is. Further, if you look at the range of model years in the data sample it encompasses more than "any modern vehicle" including ones which are much better now than they were __ years ago, or models like Fusion which didn't exist before 2006. That said, there IS something to it because if it correlated perfectly to year over year sales F-150 and Camry would be there.


http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/30/honda-lowest-fleet-average-key-segments/

what's the story with honda's fleet sales history?

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
That list is BULL. Seriously, I have never seen a Ford F-250 go further than a Grand Marquis or a Lincoln Town Car with the 4.6.(We are talking gas engines here-right?) My money would be on a Ford F-150 going further than a F-250. A Silverado makes the list but a Caprice doesn't? Cops would beat the snot out of them and then Cab companies would run them another million. That article was total [censored].

You obviously took zero time to try and understand what you were reading (if you read it at all).

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Accord and pickups fall into list due to sales in top 10 of all vehicles. The list was made up of vehicles for sale with >200k miles.
...


My point exactly. There are a lot of shoot first, aim later replies on here. Like them or not, Honda builds a darn good car, couple that with with the fact that it sells in large volume year after year and it follows that, with a proper data sample, it would be where it is. Further, if you look at the range of model years in the data sample it encompasses more than "any modern vehicle" including ones which are much better now than they were __ years ago, or models like Fusion which didn't exist before 2006. That said, there IS something to it because if it correlated perfectly to year over year sales F-150 and Camry would be there.


http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/30/honda-lowest-fleet-average-key-segments/

what's the story with honda's fleet sales history?

Honda doesn't like fleet sales because it dilutes the brand, hurts resale, and often results in beat up rental cars showing up on the used car market (that list is all inter-related).
So for a model like Accord, even though Camry edges it out in sales numbers, more Accords make it into the hands of actual consumers than Camrys do.
And of those Accords that found real homes, they didn't need to sell them at a massive price-break because someone was buying 20 at a time. Selling at an artificually low cost starts the used car prices that much lower and would hurt the the "real" buyers/owners.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Any vehicle will make it to 200K if you are willing to repair it.

Often it is not a issue of actual reliability but really as perceived usefulness issue.


Bingo.

Heavy duty pick ups on the list? Well... duh. When a business owner drops $50k+ on something like that, they'll pay the money to keep it on the road. A $2k repair is often cheaper than a new truck.

How about a list showing the number of repairs made during the 200k mile stretch? I think we'd see a very different list.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Accord and pickups fall into list due to sales in top 10 of all vehicles. The list was made up of vehicles for sale with >200k miles.
...


My point exactly. There are a lot of shoot first, aim later replies on here. Like them or not, Honda builds a darn good car, couple that with with the fact that it sells in large volume year after year and it follows that, with a proper data sample, it would be where it is. Further, if you look at the range of model years in the data sample it encompasses more than "any modern vehicle" including ones which are much better now than they were __ years ago, or models like Fusion which didn't exist before 2006. That said, there IS something to it because if it correlated perfectly to year over year sales F-150 and Camry would be there.


http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/30/honda-lowest-fleet-average-key-segments/

what's the story with honda's fleet sales history?

Honda doesn't like fleet sales because it dilutes the brand, hurts resale, and often results in beat up rental cars showing up on the used car market (that list is all inter-related).


I don't understand this. They don't actually want to distribute their vehicles in fleet service to prevent them from being 'beat up' or from losing volume discount margins? Either way, that doesn't "look good" to me from a PR perspective. Even if that reasoning were true, isn't that just artificial manipulation of brand perception by picking choosing who owns your product and what price they pay?

There are plenty of Honda's in actual fleet service, but few being sold from a Honda fleet department. What's up with that? It raises a few red flags and eyebrows over the years. Aren't fleet sales and dealer sales independent metrics, or does Honda still think that by using dealers to cut fleet deals that it artificially boost their "sales" numbers or force dealers to accept losses?

American Honda Motor has been deeply mired in this type of corruption since the mid-90s and they have also done one of the most remarkable cover-up jobs in the industry to date. There is a book out there, entitled "Arrogance and Accords" authored by one Steve Lynch which basically blew the whistle on the corruption of American Honda; it's mentioned in the second TTAC link below. I'm very, very skeptical to this day about any claims Honda motor makes.


Quote:

And of those Accords that found real homes, they didn't need to sell them at a massive price-break because someone was buying 20 at a time. Selling at an artificually low cost starts the used car prices that much lower and would hurt the the "real" buyers/owners.


"Real homes" that's odd. Manhy Honda models were being sold at significant markups to sticker, and that's been a huge problem- the American Honda corporate has been screwing their dealers and customers for a long time. What do you know about this issue?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/02...tail-customers/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/the-truth-about-hondas-fleet-sales/

The second link is more informative. Are you familiar with what's being discussed?

 

[gofast182]

Hahaha. You might want to put the torch and pitchfork down. Honda can sell cars however they see fit, just as Chevrolet, or any other brand can if they want to.
If you have large, formal fleet sales where the cars must be sold at a deep discounts you automatically lower the price for used cars re-entering the market which affects consumers who didn't/couldn't purchase their car the same way.
Now, of course there are some Hondas in fleets but the fleet buyers aren't afforded the same "Costco" treatment Ford or Nissan uses. For almost every mainstream car model far more are sold to consumers than fleets and that's where the majority of customers/customer relationships are, so why is Honda bad for looking out for the consumer side of things where most of the transactions/customers/and customer relationships they have to maintain are? Pretty silly to play gotcha when you don't have an understanding of how the market works or its makeup.

As for what's sold above sticker, that happened with the 2006 Civic Si but I'm not aware of widespread markups at all. How about Chevrolet doing it with the Corvette, Ford with the BOSS 302, Subaru BRZ, etc. There are many examples of this happening but it's not a huge conspiracy as might like to think. The dealer in the next town over would be happy to undersell the other guy to get the business. And in every case, no one goes in with a gun to their head. If they're silly enough to pay an extra $2,000 over sticker for a Corvette that's their problem.

 

[hattaresguy]

Honda is actually a very small company. In other countries a Honda product is somewhat rare, OTOH Toyota seems to rule the world, same with GM. I remember seeing new CRV's with stickers of $90k on one island they were considered a premium brand and vehicle.

In the third world nothing runs better longer than a base Corolla most are so low spec you can't even get them in this country. IE crank windows, no AC, no PS, and sometimes carb motors, or at the very least more basic smaller engines.

Than comes old Mercedes, and the Lada.

Oh and the ubiquitous Toyota pickup.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Hahaha. You might want to put the torch and pitchfork down. Honda can sell cars however they see fit, just as Chevrolet, or any other brand can if they want to.
If you have large, formal fleet sales where the cars must be sold at a deep discounts you automatically lower the price for used cars re-entering the market which affects consumers who didn't/couldn't purchase their car the same way.
Now, of course there are some Hondas in fleets but the fleet buyers aren't afforded the same "Costco" treatment Ford or Nissan uses. For almost every mainstream car model far more are sold to consumers than fleets and that's where the majority of customers/customer relationships are, so why is Honda bad for looking out for the consumer side of things where most of the transactions/customers/and customer relationships they have to maintain are? Pretty silly to play gotcha when you don't have an understanding of how the market works or its makeup.

As for what's sold above sticker, that happened with the 2006 Civic Si but I'm not aware of widespread markups at all. How about Chevrolet doing it with the Corvette, Ford with the BOSS 302, Subaru BRZ, etc. There are many examples of this happening but it's not a huge conspiracy as might like to think. The dealer in the next town over would be happy to undersell the other guy to get the business. And in every case, no one goes in with a gun to their head. If they're silly enough to pay an extra $2,000 over sticker for a Corvette that's their problem.


Breaking out the ol' strawman already huh? I'm just curious (and appalled) at the company's business practices-- the actual criminal behaviour followed up by the powerhouse cover-up that was so effective, how many of us really knew about it? I for one found out from that TTAC article, not long ago. It just confirms the corporate culture that they (and others of course) try to mask over with all this euphemistic "we care, bring home a honda" horse hockey and it's nothing new or theoretical- it's real, documented and established. To spin it as "concern and care for the one-on-one customer relationship" is just more hooey to me. TOo much hooey and puff-piecery from the usual suspects about "top sales" this and that, [censored] only a CEO could care about- now they're making these laughable 'predictions' abot which cars will last the longest. What a joke, these clowns need to travel the world if they really want to see which cars last the longest.

Did you know about that scandal before this? If so, what were your thoughts about it and American Honda's manner of business?

 

[gofast182]

Wow. You sound pretty ridiculous, no, very ridiculous.

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting it's all touchy feely, we care, stuff. It's business and it's about money (as it should be with any company, particularly one that has a duty to its shareholders). If you're running a business you care more about a group of 50 customers buying one car each than the single fleet manager buying 50 cars at a lower margin. The fleet manager is fickle and doesn't care where he goes for his next buy. The 50 individual customers, you want them satisfied enough to come back and to influence their friends and family favorably to your vehicle(s).

Apparently, along with several others here, you're having trouble with the article. They aren't predicting which cars ultimately last longest. They're presenting data from a very large sample that says X, Y, Z, car is more likely to be running and/or salable at 200k miles.

 

[FutureDoc]

Honda's non-fleet sale reasons is a load a rubbish. If anything, it is that Honda is less competitive than other brands for fleet sales. Individuals might be willing to pay more for a Honda, but not a fleet accountant. Most Honda are $2-4K more than their rivals and over the course of the 3-5 years of the average fleet vehicle life-span, nothing Honda can do for the driver will cover the cost of that initial vehicle. It is not Honda's doing, it is simple business calculation. That is why fleets JUMP at production over-run.

Think about it if you were a fleet. For example:

$18300 Civic
$15995 Dodge Dart

 

[gofast182]

It's not rubbish but that is a valid point and certainly one factor in the equation.

BTW, unless you're talking Korean cars, once you equip them identically, the price differences aren't quite as much as you indicate.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: gofast182

Apparently, along with several others here, you're having trouble with the article. They aren't predicting which cars ultimately last longest. They're presenting data from a very large sample


One country? Not large enough.
From '81 to 2010? Are these model years, or have they been gathering data from 81 to 2010?? Does anyone know?

Such a misleading, meaningless article. They buy your credibility by listing trucks and SUVs that everyone knows rack up the miles and stay on the market longest, and then inject one car model, like a little ad for Honda.

Like I said, leave the country, and you'll be hard pressed to find an Accord anywhere let alone one with 200K. You likely see 25 200+ K Toyota's before spotting an Accord to be honest.

With such arbitrary metrics, one could easily spin it like this: "maybe less people are selling their high mile Camrys, Impalas, Panthers etc. Maybe more people are willing to sell a Honda Accord after 200K." And considering how many other models trump Accords in real fleet sales, sold by their respective fleet departments, it really doesn't add up. Isn't the used car market flooded with high mile 200K plus fleeters "diminishing brand value"? Why was the accord the only one listed?

Because it's a lot of horse-hockey, that's why.
"Top 10: Which vehicles will last 200,000 miles?"
Like, what is that,a guarantee?

Also, way to completely avoid the Honda fleet sales corruption issue. You didnt even acknowledge that it was posted in here.

 

[gofast182]

I'm not sure why you're trying to bend, twist, wiggle, and otherwise be a dolt.

What publication is it? USA Today. Repeat, *USA* Today. Not Canada Today.

The USA is the second largest new car market in the world, and, for the years of data collected it was the largest new car market in the world.

30 million listings. Scientifically, that's an utterly fantastic sample.

Sure, a Panther is every bit as reliable as an Accord, maybe even more reliable, but the fact is those cars were not selling very poorly *to regular consumers* for years. And the ones that were sold into fleet duty often have different ways of re-entering the used car market.

It's not a guarantee, only an idiot being absurd for the sake of being absurd would read it that literally. But with a sample of 30 million listings, the analysis says the cars that make it to 200k and are able to be sold are the ones on that list.

The article mentions the dealership issue back in the early '90's but even the author basically says that's ancient history and practices don't resemble that anymore. As for fleet sales themselves, I don't see corruption, I see a company that does fleet sales if a customer is willing to pay but that goes out of their way not to make it a cornerstone of their business. Just because you don't like what or how they do it doesn't make it corrupt.

So please, go bark up a different tree because you're not doing yourself any favors making these dumb arguments and trying to play gotcha with the title of an article or posting links to articles that don't quite say what you want them to.

 

[hypervish]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: gofast182

Apparently, along with several others here, you're having trouble with the article. They aren't predicting which cars ultimately last longest. They're presenting data from a very large sample


One country? Not large enough.
From '81 to 2010? Are these model years, or have they been gathering data from 81 to 2010?? Does anyone know?

Such a misleading, meaningless article. They buy your credibility by listing trucks and SUVs that everyone knows rack up the miles and stay on the market longest, and then inject one car model, like a little ad for Honda.

Like I said, leave the country, and you'll be hard pressed to find an Accord anywhere let alone one with 200K. You likely see 25 200+ K Toyota's before spotting an Accord to be honest.

With such arbitrary metrics, one could easily spin it like this: "maybe less people are selling their high mile Camrys, Impalas, Panthers etc. Maybe more people are willing to sell a Honda Accord after 200K." And considering how many other models trump Accords in real fleet sales, sold by their respective fleet departments, it really doesn't add up. Isn't the used car market flooded with high mile 200K plus fleeters "diminishing brand value"? Why was the accord the only one listed?

Because it's a lot of horse-hockey, that's why.
"Top 10: Which vehicles will last 200,000 miles?"
Like, what is that,a guarantee?

Also, way to completely avoid the Honda fleet sales corruption issue. You didnt even acknowledge that it was posted in here.

You hit the nail on the head!

Clearly gofast182 has a large bias for Honda, as can easily be seen by his posts and his signature.