I think you are both wrong. It is irrelevant whether the
vehicle has a 4 or a 6, OHV or OHC. What matters is the
realtivel performance (including things like engine
smoothness, performance, ease of maintenance, etc.). Just
sitting in a Taurus tell you it is "more" car. And the OHV
Taurus 6 is smoother and more powerful than the OHC Camry 4.
However, I am sure many people feel that the Camry is a
better value for whatever reason.

According to CR, a 4 cyliner 2005 Camry LE has a zero to 60
of 9.7 sec. A 2004 OHC Taurus had a zero to 60 of 8.3 sec.
So, I'd say it is not fair to comapre the 4 cylinder Camry
to the OHC Taurus if performance is your criteria. Clearly
the base model Taurus is a far better "value" than the base
model Camry. If you put much faith in CR's little circles,
both the 2004 Taurus and 2004 Camry got excellent marks. On
CU's 150 mile trip, the 4 cylinder Camry averaged 28 mpg,
the larger and much faster Taurus averaged 26. I doubt that
many people buying a Camry will care about this.

Ed

You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a pushrod
V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC engine.  DOHC Taurus
(optional engine) has to be selected for LIKE comparison.

Using that logic why not compare the Taurus to a Corolla? The
point is the price one must pay to buy similarly equipped
vehicles, that means the Camry that must be compared is the V6,
since Taurus is not available with a
4 cy in its lowest priced model.  A V6 over the 4 cy adds to cost
of a Camry so the higher end model must be used to make any
comparison.  ;)

mike hunt

Yeah but that wasn't his point. He was trying to compare the PRICES of an
apples to apples scenario. It makes no difference that most people opt for
the Camry 4 cylinder and the Taurus 6. His POINT was the huge price
differential of AS SIMILAR AS POSSIBLE used cars.

Me thinks if you look under the hood of 80% of Camrys you will
find a 4 cy engine.   ;)

mike hunt

It does not.  Check the Kelly Bluebook website and get price quotes for both
cars, comparably equipped when new, equal mileage, equal engines (be sure
you note that Ford stuffs a pushrod low output V6 in the Taurus as a base
engine while an overhead cam V6 in the Ford is an upgrade that Camry comes
standard with.

I cannot imagine that a 2 year old Taurus or similar brings nearly the % as
a 2 year old Hon/Toy.

That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car,
to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money.  I prefer to
spend less to get a new car every two years, not more

Glad you mentioned the Taurus.  A two year old top of the line V6
Taurus actually returns MORE of it actual drive home price than a
similar V6 Camry.  Sure the Camry has a higher resale value than
the Taurus, of about $4,000 according to NADA, but the Camry cost
$6,000 more to drive home when new so you lost $2,000.  When you
trade Taurus on Taurus you save on the next one as well   ;)

mike hunt

<snip>

I am talking about actual

,snip>

Actually, you claim to have facts but they are merely antidotes. My
numbers....actual transaction prices of new and used cars...is more FACTUAL.
Those FACTS show that Japanese cars are priced to go about 50% longer than
American cars. You may argue that the Japanese cars DON'T ACTUALLY go 50%
more, and you MAY (but probably are not) be right. But my FACT, which is
undisputable, is that the Japanese cars, both new and used, command a
premium suggesting 50% longer miles per car. And I am talking about actual
transaction-after-rebates prices. True, Taurus and Camry might have similar
window stickers, but the only way to move the Taurus is to cut the price
using rebates while Camry generally can be sold out at window sticker. Same
for used....a 3 year old Taurus will lose 60% of it's value while a Camry
will lose 35% (just guesses on THOSE numbers but you get my point).

And regardless of what you say, the Pinto was just plain garbage. OK, you
may have a rare, exceptional creampuff, but in the real world it was
garbage. And, OK, the early 1970's Toyotas and CERTAINLY the early Hondas
were junk too. And the Detroit Iron of that era, except for Pinto, Vega and
Gremlin, was indeed generally good. But let's get off the ancient history
here. Modern cars, priced by FACTUAL STATISTICS ACCORDING TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE
WILLING TO PAY, show the Japanese cars are priced to go about 150,000 miles
while Detroit (or Mexican or Canadian) metal is only priced for 100,000
miles. If you honestly believe you can get the same mileage out of Detroit
as you can out of Japan with no additional operating costs, then Detroit is
the better deal for you. The market of millions and millions of vehicles
suggests that the average American has learned otherwise.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.  I chose to
disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences
over the years.  That is after all what we are expressing here,
opinions.  I happen to own a 1971 Pinto, that I purchased new in
1970.  It has lasted for a lot more than you perceived 100K.
There is currently 298,000 miles on the clock and all original.
The only repairs have been s clutch at 210K and a Carbon and
valve job in February.   I own a half dozen old cars that I take
to old cars shows.  I see old cars for the US, England, Germany,
even Italy but I have never seen any Japanese cars from the
seventies at any of those shows let alone one with the 150K you
believe they will exclusively achieve. All manufactures build
some on occasion that are not up to their build standards for the
class in which they compete, that is why the all have a
warranty.  From what we see in our fleet service business, that
services nearly every brand on the market, is that ANY brand on
the market today will easily run 200K and more if properly
serviced. That is not an opinion but a fact and we have the
records to support that conclusion.  The only real difference we
see in todays vehicles is style and price, period.  I prefer
a particular style of vehicle and that is RWD and V8 powered.  I
want to buy those that will cost me the least amount of money to
replace every two years.  That is my choice, others may chose
differently and that is their privilege as well.

mike hunt

There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run
too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new
thread. There was discussion about buying Lexus versus Lincoln. One of the
things that I realized is that, more or less, Toyota/Honda vehicles are
priced by the market, both new and used, as if the car will last 150,000
miles while American vehicles are generally priced as if the vehicles will
last 100,000 miles. Meaning that at 50,000MI, a Honda/Toyota will still be
worth about 2/3 of the original price while an American vehicle will be
worth about half. This is merely a very rough rule of thumb, but something
I've noticed. Even new, the US vehicles can't be sold unless Detroit rebates
it's way to a sale, so the "out the door" price is much less than the "out
the door" price of a Toy/Hon. Even though the sticker prices are similar.
Again, this seems to reflect that the market assumes the Toy/Hon will go
150,000 miles before major trouble vs merely 100,000 for the US vehicle. My
point is that buying similar sized-categorized vehicles from Toy/Hon vs US
is no longer an apples to apples comparison. (I realize that many vehicles
go 200,000 to 300,000 miles...maybe more....of both American and Japanese
build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about
50% longer).