Decade of Worst Made Vehicles

[Threehz]

As I've mentioned many times, I've been looking for a vehicle for my girlfriend and myself because we have a baby on the way (and our Tahoe's fuel economy is shit). I've broadened my range quite a bit, looked at many vehicles, and it's becoming more and more clear that vehicles made from about 2000 to 2010 are the worst made vehicles the world has ever seen (with some exceptions of course).

I've been looking at Hondas and Toyotas. They are well-known to be "the most reliable" vehicles around right? In my research I've found that their most popular vehicles (Civic, Accord, Corolla, Camry, RAV4) all have major (engine &or transmission & other) problems, consistently. (2000-2010)

I found this information by looking through multiple vehicle complaint websites and reliability guides for each vehicle mentioned and multiple years. I also found out that the president of Toyota admitted to the public that the quality they were known for was lost during that period because they set their aim at taking &or keeping the number on spot for global sales and lost touch with their own morals.

It's a pain when it comes to searching for a vehicle because the older vehicles which have next to no complaints are very hard to find with low mileage and in decent condition. Whereas I can find ten low mileage 2004's of the same vehicle in good condition, but the failure statistics for major components are so high, with a complete lack of manufacturer support, that it is hard to justify.

Am I going loony from searching for a vehicle or anyone notice this?

[gwb72tii]

actually it was the late 70's/early 80's when cafe standards were forced upon us
GM made their larger cars with 140hp 5.5 liter diesel V8's
real POS's
i was following one up a long hill, closer than he liked and he floored it
he didn't go any faster but the ungodly cloud of unburnt hydrocarbons that came out of his tailpipe killed all vision and i almost ran off the road until the daylight came back
plus the cars were butt ugly

[scottinAZ]

with few exceptions car quality has been in decline for decades. CAFE standards, crash standards and just the attitudes, wants and desires of the consumer base have shoved some real shitboxes down our throats. Enthusiast vehicles are dead, and with them quality standards have gone as well. Best of luck finding a non-shitbox out there

[spike68]

I definitely agree with you on this one. Car companies are just able to get away with this kind of stuff, especially American car companies. For some reason the average person will buy anything that has "Made in the USA" stamped on it. The problem is also the people too. Im pretty sure the average american dosent know jack shit about a car, which is also why mechanics charge up the butt for any type of repair.
In the end, the people let it happen. Its always the "I dont have time" excuse. If you cared about the things your own, LIKE YOUR CAR, then you would set aside time to care for the thing that gets you to the place you make your money at. Buy a car can almost be like signing a phone contract. Dont you want to know what youre spending your money on each month? Its the same with cars. If you dont know how it works, then how could you know what youre really paying for when you repair it?
Sure people dont want to pay for repairs in the first place, but thats just not going to happen. Things wear over time, especially since you use a car everyday. Does walking even exist to people anymore?
Im getting a little off point.

But yes, its a pain to look for a car now a days since you cant trust anything or anymore with the situation of the advertising market. I just always think "You get what you paid for". If you buy a cheap car, it may break down easier.
Ive always looked as if i send a little more money on a more quality car, it wont come up with as many problems, AS LONG AS YOU CARE FOR IT.


EDIT: I guess we should all keep in mind that combustion engines arent exactly the most efficent things either. In a sence, all cars are horribly made.

[SpeicherBimmer]

I think you're right. I have a 2000 Honda Accord v6 and quite frankly am waiting for the day that transmissions goes out, and have been since new. Thankfully, as I take extremely good care of it and am religious about maintenance she still purrs like a kitten. Finding a car from that time frame from almost any manufacturer that has had an owner really take care of it is going to be tough. I am a firm beleiver that 90% of a car's longevity is due to routine maintenance...

[CorvallisBMW]

Ya.... you're a pretty young guy, aren't you?

Too young to know much about the "Malaise era" apparently. Look up cars from the late 70s-early 80s. They're all HORRIBLE. Giant bumpers, EGR systems, 500+ cubic inches making ~140hp, swing arm rear axles, choking emissions systems, GM diesels, etc etc etc....

Stuff made in the naughties (2000-2009) are the shining pinnacle of perfection compared to Malaise era shit. Yes, plenty of cars made recently won't make it to 200,000mi on their original transmission, but the 70s GM diesels rarely made it to 50,000mi on their original engines! We have it good. Very, very good.

[Charlie]

As I've mentioned many times, I've been looking for a vehicle for my girlfriend and myself because we have a baby on the way (and our Tahoe's fuel economy is shit). I've broadened my range quite a bit, looked at many vehicles, and it's becoming more and more clear that vehicles made from about 2000 to 2010 are the worst made vehicles the world has ever seen (with some exceptions of course).

I've been looking at Hondas and Toyotas. They are well-known to be "the most reliable" vehicles around right? In my research I've found that their most popular vehicles (Civic, Accord, Corolla, Camry, RAV4) all have major (engine &or transmission & other) problems, consistently. (2000-2010)

I found this information by looking through multiple vehicle complaint websites and reliability guides for each vehicle mentioned and multiple years. I also found out that the president of Toyota admitted to the public that the quality they were known for was lost during that period because they set their aim at taking &or keeping the number on spot for global sales and lost touch with their own morals.

It's a pain when it comes to searching for a vehicle because the older vehicles which have next to no complaints are very hard to find with low mileage and in decent condition. Whereas I can find ten low mileage 2004's of the same vehicle in good condition, but the failure statistics for major components are so high, with a complete lack of manufacturer support, that it is hard to justify.

Am I going loony from searching for a vehicle or anyone notice this?

So, you're what, 18-20 years old?

As mentioned before, late 70's-early 80's american cars were awful, 70's british stuff is amazingly abysmal. Anything Korean before the late 90's early 2000s is junk. We're not talking "replace tranny parts at 120k", we're talking dead by 40k, bodies rusting through, motors dropping compression at 30k miles, etc.

Modern cars are amazingly reliable, all things considered. Yes you have to deal with sensors and other emissions BS, but the car still runs. These days when you see a car break down/die, it's usually do to complete neglect, IE 20+K on the oil, 15 year old coolant hoses, original plugs, fluids, etc. You don't see it shit the bed after three years because the head was milled poorly and warped.

That being said, Honda and Toyota are entering into their own "malaise" period. The designs suck, the cars are absolutely terrible to drive, and they have been seriously cost engineered. If you're dead set on something 2004+, Might as well look at the Korean stuff as well, it's the same quality. If you wanna go something Japanese and dreadfully boring, look at mid-late 90's stuff.

-Charlie

[tspangle88]

I'm sorry, but today's cars are better in every way than the ones that came before them. Quality? Look at the decline in the number of reported problems over the years in JD Power surveys. Performance? Every econobox on the road gets to 60 in less than 9 or so seconds these days, and many of them get 40mpg doing it. Your average Camry/Accord/Fusion/Malibu with a V6 would *smoke* most performance cars from 20-30 years ago, and be safer, cleaner, more efficient, have more electronic options, and be more reliable doing it. Anyone who thinks that today's cars are trouble-prone never had to adjust points or deal with vapor lock or the other fun stuff that came with carburetors. In the olden days, if a car had 100k on it, it was pretty much done. Nowadays, it's nothing. There was also almost no attention paid to corrosion protection, it was very common to see visible rust on cars that were 2-3 years old, especially in Michigan. Now it take 3-4 times that long.

Global competition has caused everyone to raise their game or die, especially the domestics. They coasted in the 60s and 70s when they had 80-90% of the market. They built some utter garbage in those days.

[Stanley Rockafella]

OP's lookin for a safe car too. Nothin from the 70's or 80's can compare to today's standards!

[5Toes]

Its all about them bmws

[SpeicherBimmer]

YEs, cars from the 70's and 80s sucked hard overall, but I don't think anyone would be looking for a DD that is well over 25 years old ( E30s excluded, of course). The OP is right, though. Jap cars from the aughts, while arguably looking better and having more features/power, just aren't built as well as they used to be. Great, some of us are in our 20s and didn't have to experience the medieval days of proto-emmissions equipment and 140 hp Z28s...sorry.

[herbivor]

I know a lot of people here would disagree with me, but a used 2nd generation Toyota Prius would meet all your needs. It's one of the most reliable cars ever made, safe, fuel efficient and plenty spacious for a family of 4. Maintenance costs are pretty low as well and the batteries have performed much longer than anticipated. You can pick one up in very good condition for under $10k. The fun factor is non-existent but it's a practical family car, which is something you need.

[VinniE30]

Ya.... you're a pretty young guy, aren't you?

Too young to know much about the "Malaise era" apparently. Look up cars from the late 70s-early 80s. They're all HORRIBLE. Giant bumpers, EGR systems, 500+ cubic inches making ~140hp, swing arm rear axles, choking emissions systems, GM diesels, etc etc etc....

Stuff made in the naughties (2000-2009) are the shining pinnacle of perfection compared to Malaise era shit. Yes, plenty of cars made recently won't make it to 200,000mi on their original transmission, but the 70s GM diesels rarely made it to 50,000mi on their original engines! We have it good. Very, very good.

So, you're what, 18-20 years old?

As mentioned before, late 70's-early 80's american cars were awful, 70's british stuff is amazingly abysmal. Anything Korean before the late 90's early 2000s is junk. We're not talking "replace tranny parts at 120k", we're talking dead by 40k, bodies rusting through, motors dropping compression at 30k miles, etc.

Modern cars are amazingly reliable, all things considered. Yes you have to deal with sensors and other emissions BS, but the car still runs. These days when you see a car break down/die, it's usually do to complete neglect, IE 20+K on the oil, 15 year old coolant hoses, original plugs, fluids, etc. You don't see it shit the bed after three years because the head was milled poorly and warped.

That being said, Honda and Toyota are entering into their own "malaise" period. The designs suck, the cars are absolutely terrible to drive, and they have been seriously cost engineered. If you're dead set on something 2004+, Might as well look at the Korean stuff as well, it's the same quality. If you wanna go something Japanese and dreadfully boring, look at mid-late 90's stuff.

-Charlie

I'm sorry, but today's cars are better in every way than the ones that came before them. Quality? Look at the decline in the number of reported problems over the years in JD Power surveys. Performance? Every econobox on the road gets to 60 in less than 9 or so seconds these days, and many of them get 40mpg doing it. Your average Camry/Accord/Fusion/Malibu with a V6 would *smoke* most performance cars from 20-30 years ago, and be safer, cleaner, more efficient, have more electronic options, and be more reliable doing it. Anyone who thinks that today's cars are trouble-prone never had to adjust points or deal with vapor lock or the other fun stuff that came with carburetors. In the olden days, if a car had 100k on it, it was pretty much done. Nowadays, it's nothing. There was also almost no attention paid to corrosion protection, it was very common to see visible rust on cars that were 2-3 years old, especially in Michigan. Now it take 3-4 times that long.

Global competition has caused everyone to raise their game or die, especially the domestics. They coasted in the 60s and 70s when they had 80-90% of the market. They built some utter garbage in those days.

I think OP is probably comparing the 2000-2010 decade to the decade or 2 before it... the 80s or 90s. NOT the 60s and 70s. And you're all talking about american cars.

Take a look at BMW for example since we're most familiar with them. Take a look at what they did from e36 to e46. They took the great m5x series engines and added on more emissions garbage, used aluminum blocks, used more plastics in place of metals, and didin't fix the cooling system problems and subframe problems, and others. It's pretty well known that the e36 is more reliable and has longer lasting engines and cheaper to own long term than the e46. Overall there were very slight improvements in fuel economy and performance for a loss in reliability and increase in complexity.

If we go a decade back before that and look at the e30 to e46 transition it's more debatable, some things were improved, some things were less reliable. The shitty G250 was a downgrade from the G260, and although the M5x engines are an improvement in performance, they usually don't last any longer than m20s do.


If it were up to the engineers to make all the decisions in the auto industry things would be very different. I'm sure they could create great performing and very reliable cars. But it's not under their control. Marketing and doing whatever it takes to improve profits, even if it's counterintuitive and not sustainable to the company in the long run - (decrease in durability and quality parts for costs savings).
They know that reliability doesn't sell new cars, people will buy them anyway if you put a good warranty on it. They don't care what happens after the warranty is over, if they made them to last forever then people wouldn't buy their new cars. I think maybe in the e30 era there was more of importance put on the brand's image of making a quality car and it was seen as more important to improve their reputation for making long lasting cars so people would buy their new ones a decade from then - it's a different way of thinking about it.

[Threehz]

So much feedback and discussion!

I'll try and address things in order-ish.

I am young, just barely going to be 22 years old. However, I own a 1977 280Z, and for everyone hating on late 70's early 80's vehicles, did you consider the Japanese ones (which is what I originally was talking about). My 1977 280Z has (compared to earlier models) a rat's nest of emissions equipment, huge metal bumpers, yet the 168 cubic-inch engine puts out 150 horsepower, so I have to laugh at the 500+cu in for 140HP comment.

Also, talk to my Datsun friends with 800,000+ miles and only one rebuild, or 400,000+ with no rebuilds on their 1970's cars, many of the transmission are just as tough.

I can't say much about 1980's vehicles except that I've personally ridden in Fords, Toyotas, Hondas, and BMWs from the 1980's all with 200,000+ miles on the original engines and transmissions.

I saw someone mentioning look at the "decline in number of problems" from JD power. I've been gathering information from owners via forums, MSN reliability reviews, Edmund's consumer discussions, and CarComplaints.com. Go search any Honda or Toyota from 2000 to 2010, than look at their 1990-1999 counterparts. You'll begin to see the vast trend of engines and transmission experiencing serious problems and even complete failure at mileage as low as 30,000, you'll see Toyota and Honda's ability to ignore the customers and refuse to address these issues (many problems from the early 2000's are just now being addressed by the companies after years of ignoring them), and finally, you'll see that these major issues are not exclusive to a small number of people, but consistent.

Here is one example:

1999 Toyota Corolla problems list on CarComplaints.com

And ten years later:

2009 Toyota Corolla problems list on CarComplaints.com

It's interesting that in 13 years the 1999 Corolla has almost no problems reported to the site, and in just 3 years the 2009 Corolla has 66 problems reported. The 2009 hasn't even had time to realize the full potential of problems owners may see.

Anyhow, I'm not intentionally trying to argue this as a case. As I originally said, while searching for a new vehicle, this is what I'm seeing. The feel and character of new cars compared to old ones is a completely different subject.

Just to note, I'm about to go check out a 2002 Honda CR-V, which appears to not have too many faults. If it's clean enough, problem-free, and I can work the price down, it will probably be our next vehicle.

Cheers!

[JasonC]

I'd take a late 70's-mid 80's GM G-body anyday of the week for a daily driver ;)