Car Forum / Lexus Cars / March 2006
Mercedes Vs. Lexus
|
|
Thread rating:  |
sloppybeak - 04 Mar 2006 15:35 GMT I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and just as comfortable. What say ye?
 Signature sloppybeak
Cloud Burst - 04 Mar 2006 16:03 GMT >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a >Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible >overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and >just as comfortable. What say ye? I would never buy a car from a company that makes the Dodge.
Steve Jacobs - 04 Mar 2006 16:11 GMT I see you're in Australia, so you probably don't see the American magazine, Consumer Reports. It just came out with it's ratings of reliability of various cars, as gathered from subscriber's surveys.
Most folks in the US (but not all) view these ratings of reliability as the best available.
In response to your post, I just looked through the new ratings, and the results are striking. Lexus is clearly on top in every relevant category, as is Toyota. Honda is just about as good-- the differences are likely not to be statistically significant.
Below is an article, cut a pasted from the Pittsburgh PA Post-Gazette in Pennsylvania, reporting on the results:
For the first time since it introduced the annual listing in 1997, all of Consumer Reports' Top Ten vehicles are Japanese-made.
The top picks are models that scored at or near the top in the magazine's testing program, have average or better predicted reliability , and performed adequately in overall crash protection as tested by the government or insurance industry.
Here are the top picks in each of the 10 categories: sedan, less than $20,000: Honda Civic 2; sedan, $20,000-$30,000: Honda Accord 3; sedan, $30,000-$40,000: Acura TL 4; luxury sedan: Infiniti M35 5; SUV, less than $30,000: Subaru Forester 6; SUV, more than $30,000: Toyota Highlander Hybrid 7; minivan: Honda Odyssey 8; pickup truck: Honda Ridgeline 9; green car: Toyota Prius 10; fun to drive: Subaru Impreza WRX / STi.
In a survey of Consumer Reports subscribers for predicted reliability, Chrysler and Mercury improved their showings. Mercury was the only American brand to crack the Top Ten, checking in at No. 8, while Chrysler moved up five places, to No. 15, out of 36 brands.
Lexus was named most reliable, followed by Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Acura, Scion, Mercury, Mazda and Suzuki.
In the meantime, Chevrolet, Ford, Dodge and other American brands languished in the lower rungs of the predicted reliability survey.
Predicted reliability rates for American brands have been about the same for the last two years: 17 problems per 100 vehicles in 2004 and 18 per 100 in 2005.
But the most unreliable brands in the survey were European, with an overall 21 problems per 100 vehicles.
The 10 lowest-rated brands were Audi, Infiniti, Saturn, Lincoln, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Land Rover, Hummer and Porsche.
>I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a >Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible >overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and >just as comfortable. What say ye? Elmo P. Shagnasty - 04 Mar 2006 20:17 GMT > I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my > brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a > Benz. It's just the Ford/Chevy argument at higher prices.
Rednecks will be rednecks. A closed mind is a closed mind, no matter what his paycheck says.
jdoe - 05 Mar 2006 02:39 GMT >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a >Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible >overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and >just as comfortable. What say ye? as an owner of both, I like my benz better, the lexus is a fine car if you just want to get from here to there but for people who really enjoy driving the benz is far superior
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 05 Mar 2006 13:24 GMT > >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my > >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you just want to get from here to there but for people who really > enjoy driving the benz is far superior Me, I wouldn't buy a German car with YOUR money. (Been there, done that.)
And yes, I "get" German cars. German cars are the expensive, pouty, and high-maintenance mistresses of the road. Damn, they are a fine, fine ride...
....but then the maintenance and pouting kicks in.
At some point, without unlimited funds, you are at a decision point: continue the high-priced, high-maintenance fun, or go back home and enjoy your reliable Lexus wife of a car, patiently sitting there waiting for you to get over the midlife crisis.
Oh sure, she's not as sexy as the German car, and she doesn't handle at the edge like the German car. She's also not as fickle and high maintenance and pouty, and she agrees with you much more of the time. She's always there and never complains, and you come to realize there's more to life than a high-maintenance relationship with a pouty, high-maintenance woman--no matter how sexy she is or how fun the nights out with her can be. Because when she lets you down and demands more of you than you have to give, and treats you like dirt, you're standing there all alone outside the club, looking and feeling like an idiot.
Your Lexus wife would never, ever do that to you.
And the occasional fun night out isn't worth what you end up paying for it, both financially and in time wasted while you wait for the German car mistress to be in the mood to play.
Do this: start paying attention to cars with tail light and headlight problems. What brands of cars are you seeing? That's right--VW, M-B, and BMW. And pay attention to how old, or rather how new, those problem cars are.
The reality of electrical issues with German cars make Lucas electrics look reliable.
Now *try* to find a Honda or Toyota, either low brand or high brand, no matter how old, with non-working tail lights. Good luck.
It's a small thing, but it represents the reality of the situation. You want to buy a German car? Just buy a GM car. At least the money you're throwing away stays more inside the country--and you get just as reliable a car.
kegler@bowling.net - 05 Mar 2006 17:45 GMT >> >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >> >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >throwing away stays more inside the country--and you get just as >reliable a car. Holy sh.t. Every once in a while there comes on the Internet, a response that makes so much sense that it MUST of been posted by mistake.
This one's a keeper.
thanks.
David Wynne - 05 Mar 2006 20:07 GMT Dear Dude,
You have spoken the truth. What's more, you've obviously lived the nightmare but can still tell the tale*.
Shag Nasty by name, cuddly soothsayer by nature.
My hero.
--- David
* I've lived it too, but still can't bring myself to speak of it. Help me Elmo!
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 06 Mar 2006 01:57 GMT > Dear Dude, > > You have spoken the truth. What's more, you've obviously lived the > nightmare but can still tell the tale*. I have lived it. I came back, hat in hand, and begged forgiveness.
prettyboy988-google@yahoo.com - 05 Mar 2006 20:55 GMT > Do this: start paying attention to cars with tail light and headlight > problems. What brands of cars are you seeing? That's right--VW, M-B, and > BMW. And pay attention to how old, or rather how new, those problem cars > are. Absolutely. In my rough statistics, Audi (VW) scored highest in this category.
I'm in total agreement: if you don't mind the maintenance hassle/cost, go for German - you get the fun part of driving/ego too. Toyota/Lexus is your answer if you want to have a dependable car and don't mind having a bit lesser fun (than the over-priced German that is).
Cloud Burst - 06 Mar 2006 05:44 GMT >> >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >> >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >BMW. And pay attention to how old, or rather how new, those problem cars >are. Maybe out of the category, but Volvo (you know, that "safe" car) has the absolute worst taillights and break light mechanisms. Worse than the old Ford Fiesta (hey, that was German, wasn't it?) and that's saysing a lot. I always wondered how a car can be safe when noboby else even knows when you're stepping on the brakes.
Dana - 08 Mar 2006 07:19 GMT >> >I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my >> >brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > throwing away stays more inside the country--and you get just as > reliable a car. VERY well said . -Dana
Buckshop LeFunk - 20 Mar 2006 02:16 GMT Benz far superiour? Interesting. Which of each do you have?
============ BuckShot LeFunk == 1998 LS 400 1999 E320 4-Matic
> as an owner of both, I like my benz better, the lexus is a fine car if > you just want to get from here to there but for people who really > enjoy driving the benz is far superior Elmo P. Shagnasty - 20 Mar 2006 02:25 GMT > > as an owner of both, I like my benz better, the lexus is a fine car if > > you just want to get from here to there but for people who really [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1998 LS 400 > 1999 E320 4-Matic I think what he's saying is that when it's running properly, the Benz is a superior driving machine.
That's like saying a NASCAR entry is superior.
Unfortunately for the Germans, many people want their cars to work all the time--not just on Sundays, or whenever they feel like it.
Buckshop LeFunk - 20 Mar 2006 02:57 GMT I know what you mean. My cars are now out of warranty, and I have a very good local mechanic who takes care of both. Although both cars have close to 100,000 miles, I have spent a lot more on the Benz than I have on the Lexus. The biggest expense on teh Lex was my last minor service at the dealer.
Benz - Last two years Mileage Service 77,240.00 Minor Service and Inspection 78,435.00 Crankshaft Pulley Replacement 84,319.00 Oil Change 87,489.00 Brake Light Replacement 90,965.00 Oil Change 91,695.00 Tires 92,043.00 Brakes and Transmission Seal
Lexus - Last Two Year 71,049.00 5,261.00 Oil Change 74,464.00 3,415.00 Oil Change 77,892.00 3,428.00 Minor Service and Inspection 82,864.00 4,972.00 Oil Change 86,178.00 3,314.00 New Tires 87,302.00 1,124.00 Oil Change and Wheel Alignment 92,585.00 5,283.00 Oil Change 97,460.00 4,875.00 Minor Service
============ BuckShot LeFunk == 1998 LS 400 1999 E320 4-Matic
>>>as an owner of both, I like my benz better, the lexus is a fine car if >>>you just want to get from here to there but for people who really [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Unfortunately for the Germans, many people want their cars to work all > the time--not just on Sundays, or whenever they feel like it. Ron M. - 05 Mar 2006 04:42 GMT > I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my > brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a > Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible > overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and > just as comfortable. What say ye? When you start talking about cars in the league of BMW, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz, they are all extremely nice. Even though I personally own a Lexus brand product, I have a lot of respect for BMW and Mercedes-Benz both. I would be proud to drive a vehicle manufactured by any of these three. BMW and Mercedes-Benz traditionally have had better exterior styling and superb driving dynamics, while Lexus tends to concentrate intensely on initial build quality and downstream reliability. Good electronics are a high point for Lexus. I realize that a car's looks are subjective, but in my opinion, BMW and Mercedes-Benz both make some great-looking vehicles.
So, you're probably correct to some degree with your comments to your brother. And again, the interior and exterior styling is subjective. One man's treasure is another man's junk. ;-)
Ron M.
Bill in Yakima - 06 Mar 2006 19:48 GMT I work with a number of Attorneys, most of whom drive 'Benz's. All of them are on really good terms with the service department at the local 'Benz dealership. I was at one of their houses Saturday doing some computer work. He commented on my 01 GS-430, asked how I liked it and told me his tale of woe: In 2003 he bought his wife a new S430 Benz. He paid $81,000.00 for it and since: 1) It has spent an average of 31 days in the shop per year. Since this is less than 45 days per year, Mercedes says it doesn't qualify as a lemon and will do nothing about it. 2) It has his wife stranded a number of times. 3) After much negation, the only thing Mercedes would do was to extend his warranty to 5 years, 100,000 miles. The car now has 23,000 miles on it, Since it's left his wife stranded so many times, she refuses to drive it. I suggested making a flower planter out of it. I told him I paid a little more than 1/3 of the cost of his 'Benz for my Lexus, have had "0" problems with it. He didn't offer to trade me straight across, but he was thinking about it. Personally, I will stay with Lexus.
> I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my > brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a > Benz.I told him I thought Mercedes were overpriced unreleaible > overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and > just as comfortable. What say ye? Ron M. - 06 Mar 2006 20:34 GMT >I work with a number of Attorneys, most of whom drive 'Benz's. All of them >are on really good terms with the service department at the local 'Benz [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > across, but he was thinking about it. > Personally, I will stay with Lexus. $81,000.00 for Chevy Cavalier-level reliability it sounds like to me. It's stories such as yours that steered me into the Lexus camp.
I have a close friend that said he'd never purchase another Benz due to the vast amount of problems that he experienced with his. And this guy is very, VERY particular about maintaining his vehicles properly. So in his case the problems definitely were not due to neglect.
It would be really, *really* sad to drop that kind of money for a problematic vehicle; regardless of how wealthy a person may be. No matter how good a car looks inside or out, or how many features it has, if things don't work properly it can totally sour you on the manufacturer of the vehicle. Sometimes for life depending on how bad the problems are. That's how I feel about GM at the moment. I don't feel as though my opinion of them will change anytime soon.
Ron M.
David Wynne - 06 Mar 2006 20:46 GMT Dear Guys,
I came into some money a couple of years ago and bought a CLK55, ML320 & A160 (there was a good reason for buying them, honest). They have all been a pile of total c**p. The time I've spent complaining and running around in circles trying to understand why, why, why.
It's only thanks to the liberating posting from Saint ShagNasty that I can now share my pain with you all. I got rid of the A160 and got a Honda Jazz. No visits to the garage, no pain. Great economy, great ride. Simple. Comfortable.
I have to say that the MB dealership I bought from are really good; they fix the faults no worries. But they just don't get it; I don't want another box of boiled sweets, trip to the garage, conversation on the phone. I just want the car to work.
Hell no, I can't share the pain; you don't deserve it.
--- David
Bill in Yakima - 06 Mar 2006 22:10 GMT I was talking to one of the guys I work with, he was saying that the primary reason not to buy a Lexus was the fact that there is no Lexus dealer locally. He said he wouldn't know what to do without the 'Benz dealership here. I didn't think about it at the time, but if the car is reliable, what do you need the dealer for? Our local Toyota dealership has a certified Lexus tech and they have all the tools. The only time I needed a dealer was when getting new keys programmed for the car. My Lexus has been so reliable, I have not needed any service, except for oil changes.
>I work with a number of Attorneys, most of whom drive 'Benz's. All of them >are on really good terms with the service department at the local 'Benz [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> overengineered machines, and that a Lexus would be more reliable and >> just as comfortable. What say ye? b22r - 12 Mar 2006 04:40 GMT I own an SLK320. Prior to the SLK, I owned a TT FWD. Never had any problems with either the TT Audi (also, my wife has had a problem-free A4 since 2001) or the Mercedes Benz. Both were great cars. Drove a few sc430s the past couple of weeks because I need to (sadly) get rid of my MB because it is a 6 speed and I've been having problems with my knee (on and off for the past 2 years....to the point of one round of physical therapy). Was very impressed with both the look and the quality of the sc430......very plush and a very smooth ride. However what I don't like about the sc430 is that while it looks sporty, it is far from it. I found the ride very smooth but very boring....what one would expect from a sedan vs. a sports car. Nothing wrong with the feel of the car....for what it is, Lexus has done an exceptional job...great quality and build, maybe as good as it gets for that type of car (beating the SL500). However, I think the car a beautiful snooze.....if you like to drive and like a performance vehicle, the Lexus sc430 is not for you. Myself? Went with the TT V6 with the new DSG tranny...incredibly sporty, great Bose stereo (better punch to it than the ML system IMHO) and has AWD. Loved the feel of the Boxster....but then it gets down to what car you can trust.....Lexus is at the top of the list IMHO....Audi is exceptional (though the electricl system can be tempermental....or so I've been told) and the MB less reliable than the Audi.
So.....I agree....the Lexus is more reliable and comfortable. HOWEVER, to say the Mercedes is "overpriced unreleaible overengineered machines" is bullshit IMHO. I think them pretty reliable and see where friends who own them feel the same way. Most important, if you like to drive....the Lexus is boring.
> I am just wondering, because I cannot really afford a Lexus, but my > brother claims that a LExus would never do for him-its gotta be a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sloppybeak's Profile: http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/member.php?userid=22210 > View this thread: http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124655 Mark Klebanoff - 12 Mar 2006 11:33 GMT > I own an SLK320. Prior to the SLK, I owned a TT FWD. Never had any problems > with either the TT Audi (also, my wife has had a problem-free A4 since 2001) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > exceptional (though the electricl system can be tempermental....or so I've > been told) and the MB less reliable than the Audi. That's the frustrating part of owning a Lexus. Their quality is second to none, but nobody in their wildest imagination would call any of them sporty. My description of the SC430 is that owning one will make you the sexiest guy in the retirement home.
The original IS was a good attempt at making a sporty sedan, even if it was a bit rough around the edges. Unfortunately, even that bastion of performance car testing, Consumer Reports, just said in their April issue that the new IS250/350 can't by any stretch be called sporty either.
So it looks like Toyota is giving up on its only feeble attempt to build a sporty car, and is slipping back into what it does best-- building reliable and luxurious, but boring, old men's cars. I have a 4 year old manual shift IS300, and I guess I'll hang onto it until the next generation, and hope that somehow Lexus comes back to sportiness. If I had to buy a new car today, I suspect I'd get a 3-series BMW (even though I think the new styling is totally stupid), and hope that it doesn't act like a typical German car and spend 100 days a year in the shop.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 12 Mar 2006 16:32 GMT > I own an SLK320. Prior to the SLK, I owned a TT FWD. Never had any problems > with either the TT Audi (also, my wife has had a problem-free A4 since 2001) > or the Mercedes Benz. Both were great cars. Any car, even a GM, should be fine for a couple of years--and you haven't owned these cars for more than a couple of years before you got rid of them.
That's what the carmakers are carefully crafting their cars for: the two to three year lease period. The accountants are very carefully defining the parts that will fail not within the warranty/lease period but which are not designed to go much past that. It keeps their costs down, which keeps their profits up.
The cost of fixing this issue, then, goes to the guy who buys it used.
b22r - 12 Mar 2006 18:12 GMT Interesting comment. You may be right. I note however that my Mercedes SLK320 and my Audi A4 are both 2001. No problems at all to this point....more than 2-3 years. However overall, I think it very safe to say that Lexus tops them in quality and reliability. The sc430 is one sharp looking car both in and out. Howver, as said, if you love to drive the sc430 is a snooze. I guess I just was taken aback by the particularly harsh comment about MBs....they are not that bad, at least from my experience and what I have heard.
Re things that are designed to last a short period of time, one thing that does piss me off is the bullshit with the run flat tires.....and the premium tires in general. We have enough waste in this world without selling essentially disposable tires (replace every 10-15k). Totally messed up.
Maybe if the SLK280/350 was not such a harsh ride I'd get one of those. The higher end MB is a rip off....I'd go with the Lexus even if boring.
> > I own an SLK320. Prior to the SLK, I owned a TT FWD. Never had any problems > > with either the TT Audi (also, my wife has had a problem-free A4 since 2001) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The cost of fixing this issue, then, goes to the guy who buys it used. kegler@bowling.net - 13 Mar 2006 01:35 GMT >Interesting comment. You may be right. I note however that my Mercedes >SLK320 and my Audi A4 are both 2001. No problems at all to this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Maybe if the SLK280/350 was not such a harsh ride I'd get one of those. The >higher end MB is a rip off....I'd go with the Lexus even if boring. every write up from Edmund's to Consumers Reports lists the European cars from the MB to the Porsche as the bottom of the list in reliability. It's actually pretty sad that a $60+K car is less reliable than a $20K Ford.
Pick up this months Consumers Report, this entire months issue is dedicated to the past 5 years reliability ratings. MB ranked *dead last* in reliability and frequency of repairs. These aren't test that CR did, but actual surveys from car owners from model years 2000 to 2005.
It's the same thing that Edmund's said, Motor Week same thing. In fact, MB even admitted that their cars have had a horrible repair record and their focus is to build better cars. Their dealers are even complaining about how unhappy their customers are.
I really *like* the looks of the MB line. Especially the SLK's but quite honestly, I'm not willing to give up the reliability of my LS430 to look cool while my SLK is being towed to the shop yet again.
David Z - 13 Mar 2006 03:10 GMT > ...to say the Mercedes is "overpriced unreleaible overengineered > machines" is bullshit IMHO. I think them pretty reliable... Not according to Consumer Reports. Take a look at this month's annual auto issue, page 90. MB cars are rated "much worse than average" in reliability, particularly electrical and power equipment.
When you consider that Consumer Reports rates cars on an level playing field (i.e, independent of price), MB's relability ratings are obscene considering what the cars cost. And their dealers' service departments are even more overpriced than their sales departments.
> Most important, if you like to drive....the Lexus is boring. I prefer the way the Lexus drives. When I was a teenager, I preferred the MB, BMW, "road feel" drive. :-)
b22r - 13 Mar 2006 03:24 GMT > > ...to say the Mercedes is "overpriced unreleaible overengineered > > machines" is bullshit IMHO. I think them pretty reliable... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I prefer the way the Lexus drives. When I was a teenager, I preferred > the MB, BMW, "road feel" drive. :-) I get Consumer Reports, read it monthly and depend on it for important purchases. Having said that, see little problems with the Mercedes that friends have or the SLK320 that until recently I had. Do admit that Lexus is the best relative to those we mentioned.
Re the way the Lexus drives....I preferred the road feel as a teenager and to some extent still do. I appreciate a quiet cabin but do want to hear the engine as it shifts gears (though not too loud). The Miatas, del sols (the ones that still survive), Toyota spyders, convert Beetles, etc.....those are a tad punishing long term. The TT, Boxster, SLK.....fun fun fun (as mentioned earlier). If some day Lexus gives something particularly exciting to drive (a convert)....I'm there. The sc430? Sheeeesh.....even too refined for my 80 yr old mom (who drives a high end jag).
kegler@bowling.net - 13 Mar 2006 04:16 GMT <snip>
>....I'm there. The sc430? Sheeeesh.....even too refined >for my 80 yr old mom (who drives a high end jag). is there even such a thing as a high end Jag? No thanks, been there, done that. Never own a Jag again thankyouverymuch
b22r - 13 Mar 2006 14:32 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is there even such a thing as a high end Jag? No thanks, > been there, done that. Never own a Jag again thankyouverymuch Hey....makes my mom happy (80 years old) and the thing is exceptionally reliable (not like in the old days)...so mom....ROCK ON!
kegler@bowling.net - 14 Mar 2006 00:39 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Hey....makes my mom happy (80 years old) and the thing is exceptionally >reliable (not like in the old days)...so mom....ROCK ON! ..which is also surprising to me since the Jags are in the basement in all the reviews I've read as well.
b22r - 14 Mar 2006 14:28 GMT > >> <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ..which is also surprising to me since the Jags are in the basement in > all the reviews I've read as well. Hey....maybe my family has been extremely lucky with our cars. My bet is that it definitely helps that we drive low milage cars and only keep them a few years.....the trials and tribulations of all of us getting a new car every year in the 70s (my dad would buy cars wholesale that just came off lease from his friend who owned a dealership, we'd keep them for a year and then my dad would sell them at a profit....obviously my dad wanted to be a car salesman but instead was stuck with a multimillion dollar advertising company)
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 14 Mar 2006 17:12 GMT > Hey....maybe my family has been extremely lucky with our cars. My bet is > that it definitely helps that we drive low milage cars and only keep them a > few years..... I always love to see Buick listed up there with Lexus in JD Powers ratings and the like.
The simple fact is, the average Buick driver barely drives his car and certainly uses about none of the features--which makes Buicks look good from the standpoint of warranty repairs and the like.
So yeah, if you don't drive much and you trade the car frequently, statistically speaking you're not likely to see the issues that others see when they drive their cars 12K to 15K/year and keep the car past 50K miles.
It's a damn shame that there are still cars out there like that, cars that are designed with the low mile/frequent trading driver in mind. It's like American cars in the 50s and 60s all over again.
kegler@bowling.net - 15 Mar 2006 03:42 GMT >Hey....maybe my family has been extremely lucky with our cars. My bet is >that it definitely helps that we drive low milage cars and only keep them a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >car salesman but instead was stuck with a multimillion dollar advertising >company) You make a good point. Just about any car will be fine as long as it's relatively new and, (most importantly), under warranty. I really liked our Jag but the electrical problems were never ending.
It basically boils down to this, (for me anyway). I've reached a point in my life where power is important, but not at the expense of reliability. I want a car that's powerful enough to get me out of a jam but not loud and noisy. I don't want a car that advertises what's under the hood. Most people unfamiliar with an LS, would never know that if pressed, can do damn well for a car that weighs as much as it does. Also, I want a car that is reliable. If I spend a small fortune on a car, I not only expect it to be reliable, I *demand* it. Most people would never tolerate a home appliance failing several times a year yet for some reason seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to have spent fifty times that amount on a car that can't seem to get them to the end of the street without breaking down.
If I want noise and performance, I hop on my motorcycle. Otherwise, I actually enjoy the quiet solitude of my LS. The days of roaring engines and high speed turns are, fortunately or unfortunately, behind me.
b22r - 15 Mar 2006 04:10 GMT > >Hey....maybe my family has been extremely lucky with our cars. My bet is > >that it definitely helps that we drive low milage cars and only keep them a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > engines and high speed turns are, fortunately or unfortunately, behind > me. A couple of things..
My mom had a jag in the late 80s, maybe early 90s. She had leased it.....it was the most unreliable POS imaginable. An incredible amount of electrical problems. Half the time it would not even start (often stranding her somewhere). She returned it to the leasing agency within 2 months. In contrast, the relatively newjag she has now is quite nice....good ride and has held up nicely.
Nothing worse than an unreliable car. Nothing worse than going to start a car and it won't....or being stranded at the side of the road. Once bitten twice shy. Too bad that overall for the auto biz, there is not better quality.
Mark Klebanoff - 15 Mar 2006 11:21 GMT > Nothing worse than an unreliable car. Nothing worse than going to start a > car and it won't....or being stranded at the side of the road. Once bitten > twice shy. Too bad that overall for the auto biz, there is not better > quality. I agree. I had a VW Rabbit that did the same things. It's been over 25 years, but I swore I'd never buy another VW, and probably another German car, ever again.....and I haven't.
The Japanese have elevated reliability to an art form. Amazingly, Hyundai is nearly that good these days. Heck, if a company that just a few years ago was building cars in buildings that had dirt floors can now build a car that reliable, there's no reason on earth why Europe and the Big 3 can't to it too.....other than that they can't be bothered.
Similarly, now that they know how to make reliable cars, I don't see why Lexus can't build a car that's attractive and sporty......other than that they don't want too because too many people are buying are buying their blandmobiles now.
b22r - 16 Mar 2006 03:48 GMT > > Nothing worse than an unreliable car. Nothing worse than going to start a > > car and it won't....or being stranded at the side of the road. Once bitten [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > buying their blandmobiles now. > -- An unreliable car is kinda like a cheatin girlfriend......once you get burned, it's not likely that they will remain your best friend.
A car that starts up for you all the time and never breaks down....a good ole reliable best friend...
kegler@bowling.net - 16 Mar 2006 03:20 GMT >A couple of things.. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >twice shy. Too bad that overall for the auto biz, there is not better >quality. ironically, their quality went WAY up when Ford took them over. They completely re engineered their assembly process and introduced something the Brits were totally unfamiliar with...quality control.
It's an incredible statement of just how bad your build quality is when FORD can come along and double, maybe triple, your reliability ratings.
b22r - 16 Mar 2006 03:50 GMT > >A couple of things.. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > when FORD can come along and double, maybe triple, your reliability > ratings. LOL.....the unreliable one that she briefly leased was Brit. What she drives now is Ford built. Yea, go figure!
You nailed it!!
sloppybeak - 16 Mar 2006 03:27 GMT b22r Wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:24:03 -0500, "b22r" <b22r@erols.com> > graced [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > advertising > company) Thats so great, to have a dad like that! Yes, than why not drive the mercedes? Drive it 2-4 years and sell it when its ready for some intensive upkeep expenses.You DA MAN!! BY the way, what car will i get when the time comes for a sedan?? A Mercury Grand Marquis!! Thats because my dad was simple civil servant ,although he died quite comfortably upper midde class. What did he taech me? Crown Vics are the best choice all around for Price versus value, comfort, and reliability.Thjere, Ive said it. This is MY thread and im sticking to it!
 Signature sloppybeak
b22r - 16 Mar 2006 03:47 GMT > > > >> >....I'm there. The sc430? Sheeeesh.....even too refined > > > >> >for my 80 yr old mom (who drives a high end jag). [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > reliability.Thjere, Ive said it. This is MY thread and im sticking to > it! LOL.....if anything, my dad while incredibly generous screwed up the whole fam damly.....both of my brothers and I can't seem to keep a car more than a couple of year before we get bored and want something new. Oh and re the sarcasm, forget that my pop had a very successful company. The key for him was buying wholesale (off lease) and then selling for a profit (or no cost for the year used). He just loved the wheeling and dealing of car sales...and it helped that he worked out of the house. Don't hate the plater, hate the game...LOL.
David Z - 13 Mar 2006 14:21 GMT > I get Consumer Reports, read it monthly and depend on it > for important purchases. Having said that, see little problems > with the Mercedes that friends have or the SLK320 that until > recently I had. Statistically, you and your friends are just plain lucky...so far.
> Re the way the Lexus drives....I preferred the road feel as a > teenager and to some extent still do. I appreciate a quiet cabin > but do want to hear the engine as it shifts gears (though not too loud).
Not me. I'd rather hear the high-end stereo.
> The Miatas, del sols (the ones that still survive), Toyota spyders, > convert Beetles, etc.....those are a tad punishing long term. The > TT, Boxster, SLK.....fun fun fun (as mentioned earlier). If some > day Lexus gives something particularly exciting to drive (a > convert)....I'm there. The sc430? Sheeeesh.....even too refined > for my 80 yr old mom (who drives a high end jag). I'll agree with you in this sense. If I were going to buy a two-seater, the Lexus is not the one I would choose.
b22r - 13 Mar 2006 14:36 GMT > > I get Consumer Reports, read it monthly and depend on it > > for important purchases. Having said that, see little problems > > with the Mercedes that friends have or the SLK320 that until > > recently I had. > > Statistically, you and your friends are just plain lucky...so far. Overall, I have to agree with you (and am quite happy for my luck!). I do think CR "paints" things worse then they often are though...
> > Re the way the Lexus drives....I preferred the road feel as a > > teenager and to some extent still do. I appreciate a quiet cabin > > but do want to hear the engine as it shifts gears (though not too > loud). > > Not me. I'd rather hear the high-end stereo. You know....I must say I was disappointed with the ML stereo....but personally, I like more punch to my stereo (I'm a a serious rocker). I like to have the car vibrating with music. Note though that I did replace the system in my SLK320 cause I'm an audiophile. The good news is that the TT Bose system rocks....great system (have had it before). Now if only I don't blow out a speaker LOL.
Myself? I want the best of both worlds....an engine that growls and a stereo that rocks my world. The ML system is not for rock-n-rollers (though a great system).
> > The Miatas, del sols (the ones that still survive), Toyota spyders, > > convert Beetles, etc.....those are a tad punishing long term. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'll agree with you in this sense. If I were going to buy a two-seater, > the Lexus is not the one I would choose. David Z - 14 Mar 2006 00:30 GMT > You know....I must say I was disappointed with the ML stereo....but > personally, I like more punch to my stereo (I'm a a serious rocker). I like > to have the car vibrating with music. I'm very pleased with the ML audio. In fact, I bought the navigation system just to get the ML audio. I only later realized what a cool toy the nav is. :-)
> Note though that I did replace the > system in my SLK320 cause I'm an audiophile. I did that to my Pontiac Firebird when I was in my 20s. Ordered the car from the factory without a stereo. Had a high end shop put in an awesome sound system. I loved the sound, but found myself at the audio shop about once a quarter because the speakers would occasionally cut out. After that, I vowed not to do that again.
> The good news is that the TT Bose system rocks....great system > (have had it before). Now if only I don't > blow out a speaker LOL. I haven't heard the system you have, but I can say that (1) Bose is not considered "high end" in the high end stores I frequent, (2) ML is definitely considered high end in those stores, and (3) a system that has "punch" is often distortion rather than high fidelity. The Bose products are generally thought of as "colored," rather than "pure" sound.
kegler@bowling.net - 14 Mar 2006 00:41 GMT >> > I get Consumer Reports, read it monthly and depend on it >> > for important purchases. Having said that, see little problems [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Overall, I have to agree with you (and am quite happy for my luck!). I do >think CR "paints" things worse then they often are though... I'm not sure how much "painting" they had to do. The results were derived directly from the owners, not their own test drivers.
Additionally, the reviews are nearly identical to what other auto reviews on the same cars from different sites/mags have written.
Totaltully - 15 Mar 2006 06:57 GMT The Lexus brand is about 22 years old now. The Mercedes one is over a 100 years old. Thats the biggest thing going for Merc. Likewise for BMW, Porsche and the other European brands. But quality will out. Lexus, Infinito and Acura will do to the European brands what the Toyota and Honda did to the big three. Might be a matter of 10 years or more... but it will happen.
That said, what is still great about the European marquees are: 1. Great Styling 2. Performance and fun factor 3. Snob value (!!??)
Lexus styling is still seems dominated by the Toyota Design Bible - make it timeless. Will Lexus do a spinoff like Scion - create out and out style icons with loads of performance. Now that's a thought!
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 15 Mar 2006 11:56 GMT > The Lexus brand is about 22 years old now. 16, coming up on 17.
Totaltully - 16 Mar 2006 06:29 GMT > > The Lexus brand is about 22 years old now. > > 16, coming up on 17 16 is right. 1990 was the debut year.
Xplant - 16 Mar 2006 21:13 GMT Actually I think they started selling in 1989. But development, tooling, etc took some time before that.
According to "The Lexus Story" (p. 31) it was a Toyota Board meeting in August, 1983 that made the decision to go into the luxury car market. In reality, that was the birth of Lexus (which was then the "Circle F' project).
Xplant
>> > The Lexus brand is about 22 years old now. >> >> 16, coming up on 17 > > 16 is right. 1990 was the debut year. Buckshop LeFunk - 20 Mar 2006 02:45 GMT 22 Years? 1990 was the first year.
Lexus could make an ultra luxury car to compete with the Maybach, Bentley and Rolls Royce, but it may not catch on - snob appeal
============ BuckShot LeFunk == 1998 LS 400 1999 E320 4-Matic
> The Lexus brand is about 22 years old now. The Mercedes one is over a > 100 years old. Thats the biggest thing going for Merc. Likewise for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make it timeless. Will Lexus do a spinoff like Scion - create out and > out style icons with loads of performance. Now that's a thought! sloppybeak - 16 Mar 2006 12:09 GMT OL.....if anything, my dad while incredibly generous screwed up the whole fam damly.....both of my brothers and I can't seem to keep a car more than a couple of year before we get bored and want something new. Oh and re the sarcasm, forget that my pop had a very successful company. The key for him was buying wholesale (off lease) and then selling for a profit (or no cost for the year used). He just loved the wheeling and dealing of car sales...and it helped that he worked out of the house. Don't hate the plater, hate the game...LOL. Damn, I had not realised i betrayed my sentiment! It didnt dawn on me till you pointed it out , that my comments about your wealthy family were tinged with sarcasm. Let me try it again..er, lessee, Just buy a mercedes and resell it every two years even though poor slobs like me hate you for doing it even though we'd do the same thing, or probably worse if we had the intellect to have judiousciosly done what you all did while istead we were pigging out wasting our existence and therefore deserve to be driving a '89 pickups instead of an audi TT_6's. ITs no use, however sincere i try to be , im afraid theres still some resentment.Purely envious spite I assure you; no way around it im afraid-you know, class conflict and stuff.
 Signature sloppybeak
b22r - 17 Mar 2006 01:45 GMT Sloppybeak,
I understand where you are coming from. Note that with respect to my dad and his car dealings, the point I was trying to make (though obviously not well enough) was that my brothers and I getting a new car every year had NOTHING to do with money.....my dad just liked to wheel and deal cars and was able to get nice ones off lease cause of a good friend who was doing him a HUGE favor. I think in some ways, my dad would have been happy buying /selling cars....the heck with advertising.
Re my brothers and I getting a new (or used car every 2-3 years.....that my friend is a SICKNESS......and yes, it costs us $$$$....but you can't take it with you when you die and I LOVE cars. For the record, my track record of late (since early 90s) has been:
Honda Prelude--> Honda Prelude VTEC-->Honda Prelude VTEC--> VW Passat (totalled after 1 year)--> Audi A4--> Audi TT--> Mercedes SLK320-->Audi TT
To be fair, some of the moves were for good reasons.....some a$$hole ran a stop sign and totalled my Passat (with me in it), gave my A4 to my wife and had to get rid of the SLK320 cause it was a 6sp and I have knee problems. Still, I admit I do have a sickness. My wife thought it funny that the day after I got my SLK320, I went to the auto show....I love cars.
Cheers,
> OL.....if anything, my dad while incredibly generous screwed up the > whole [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > sloppybeak's Profile: http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/member.php?userid=22210 > View this thread: http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124655
|
|
|