It’s worth more as a souvenir from high-school(It’s my first car– owned from ages 17-29 now) than it is as a running, a/c-equipped, well-driving, stopping, comfortable velour-lined cabin for 5 sort of automobile.

That is why no one trades cars like this.

Ever tried to find a replacement for the same $300.00? It doesn’t happen. People are wise to this.

Unlike most of the other cars that I have traded in that have had over 120K miles, I am now thinking about getting rid of the Kia that my wife is afraid to drive.

2) Totally anecdotal, but consider this:
Kia’s are priced right from the get go
After the 5/60 or 10/100 warranty, they’re depreciated to something approaching zero.
Bad, I don’t know, but $/mile, you probably got you money’s worth. I’m not sure many of these get “traded”, but just sold on the low end of CL.

3) If Kias are bad, but almost universally, their OWNERS rate them extremely well. Value, pricing, reliability, etc. Check out any set of owner reviews and you’ll struggle to find consistant bitch sessions about Kia.

4) I still can’t understand this obsession and preoccupation with maintaining “resale” or trade in value on a 10 year old car with over 150,000 miles. By any “metric”, that car, I don’t care the nameplate, has been fully depreciated and mostly used up. They’re not Boeing airliners.

5) Some of the stats are propped up by original frenetic demand accompanied by full MSRP pricing. Honda Odyssey case in point. People paying MSRP plus and wanting or expecting a much higher “trade-in” value when they have run the thing 150, 160, 180 K miles.
Kia Sedona w/ 75,000 miles = $5,000
Honda Odyseey w/ 120K miles = $9,000
I choose the $5,000 – 75,000 mile Sedona every time.

You forgot to mention the MK4 “lifetime transmission fluid”.

So far, every MK4 that I know of (3 Jettas and 2 golfs) that have the sealed transmission with the lifetime fluid had slipping transmissions by 85,000 miles.

Typically these cars need new transmissions by 110,000 miles or so.

A friend works for a German company and he says that in Germany VW actually does service these transmissions at regular intervals. They are only “maintenance free” in the North American market.

I guess VW feels that North American drivers do not want to maintain their cars.

-ted

Old room mates early 2000s Celica with 57,000 miles… engine destroyed from a snapped timing belt.

These kinds of surveys are crap and have more to do with the owners than the cars. Most cars are so close to one another in quality, that the slightest unit of measure doesn’t show much variation from one to another

Applying my own ‘bias correction’, I would add that VW’s have seemed like garbage for a long time. There are still Civics and (especially) Accords from the late 80s, but who has seen a VW Fox lately?

And just to supply the exception that proves the rule, my dad’s early 80s Saab 900 turbo went over 500,000 miles before finally dying of advanced POS-itude.

Where, say, Toyota does well is that their cars have historically done well in the hands of people who treat the car fairly well at best and like utter crap. Case in point: when my parents divorced, my mother got custody of the ‘86 Corolla they had and, since she never was responsible for it, didn’t change the oil until it started complaining. That was at 220K (kilometers) and the car went well past 500K under deplorable conditions. Trying that with, say a Saab, Mercedes or Volkswagen would result in either repair bills, or a very large paperweight.

The point of the argument is that the European car is more fun to drive, so the intangibles make it worth the extra effort needed to keep it running.

I concur with the concept of the argument, but I doubt that it’s accurate. You can’t baby a bad electrical system or poor design, it’s just a matter of time before it does what it’s going to do, and if it doesn’t happen, then you probably got lucky. Good maintenance and treatment can slow the effects, but they can’t eliminate them.

The implication of surveys such as Consumer Reports and JD Power is that a lot of the problems experienced during car ownership are the fault of the company that built the car. That is undoubtedly true. Owners can try to minimize some of the problems, and they can definitely trash the vehicle and make them worse, but they can’t just use better maintenance to make the problems go away if they are inherent to the design, as such problems often are.

I’ve never had a satisfactory experience with a VW dealer service dept since about 1994, so I ceased doing business with them. Now I either do it myself, or if I don’t have the tools or expertise bring it to a trusted independent shop.

I love cars too much to just ignore/abuse them.

–chuck

Personally, I would not rely upon trade in data to tell how reliable a car is over the long term. This data is full of biases and laking a lot of information. How signifigant is the effect of demographics? Income bracket? Is there a bias for some makes to be owned longer than others? Do some makes get traded in less? Leased vs. bought? How large is the effect of repair cost on trade in decision? Does it vary by make? How large is the effect of climate on this data? Do harsher climates affect the results? Is it regionally biased based on other factors? The list goes on…

No offence meant, but given that the author admits to having “rusty” statistics skills, I would be leery about trusting any conclusions made from this analysis. Taking noisy data from an uncontrolled situation and getting any worthwhile conclusions and requires much more sophisticated anaysis than simple descriptive stats. Trying to prove causation over correlation is even more difficult. This analysis would be beyond someone who doesn’t have a firm background and lots of experience with statistical analysis. I have a pretty decent background in stats, and I wouldn’t touch this data with a ten footer.

Throwing a few means, medians, and standard deviations together and implying a cause effect relationship is easy. Doing a thorough and detailed anaysis, using an appropriate array of descriptive and inferential statistics, to achieve a robust and defendable conclusion, of high descriptive quality and reliability, is not.

We’re just starting to get enough older cars in TrueDelta’s panel to track this information–model years around 2000 each have 1,000 to 1,700 cars signed up. I think I’ll start tracking car mortality in the next month or so by modifying the existing surveys.

http://www.truedelta.com

The March issue of Wired (page 181) has an article about how to make data mining easier in the financial world, let’s hope that happens.

Quality:

a. Superiority of kind: an intellect of unquestioned quality.
b. Degree or grade of excellence: yard goods of low quality.
c. High social position.

Reliability:

a. Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car.
b. Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials.

It would be correct to say that Toyota’s relibility is of high quality, but an entire automotive experience is not made of reliability alone. For some, indeed many, reliability is a high priority in an automobile, but do not confuse this with quality in the general sense. Many cars offer high quality in other areas, like fit and finish, driving dynamics, and the feel of interior materials to name a few. For some people, these aspects are more important that reliability.

Personally I would rather fix my VW than drive a Toyota. While I respect their reliability, I don’t like the interior materials, the flimsy feel, the driving position, or the dynamics. A Corolla is uncomfortable to sit in, uncomfortable to drive, and reeks of cheap, thin metal and cheap, hard plastics. That to me is a very long lasting source of aggrivation and a very reliable black hole for driving enjoyment. That’s not an experience I want to deal with for over a hundred and fifty thousand miles. A VW is a higher quality car in the ways that matter most to me.

Kris

One reason Saturn’s demise make me cry: I had a ‘99 SL that I put 186k problem-free miles on, then sold for real money. As far as I know, the car is still going strong.

What did we buy to replace it? A Civic, of course :).

Result: will never buy a Dodge/Chrysler again. Am considering Ford Expedition as replacement for Caravan (need the space and 4wd).

Metrics experience: most cars will get to 120k before dying; after that, no promises.

That’s why Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Ferrari, Lambo, etc, etc, etc, are *quality* vehicles… but no owner would ever tell you that they were as *reliable” as Toyota or Honda.

RR, Bentley, and Lambo are all expensive but low quality cars. People simply didn’t want them at the price they demanded. That’s why they all got bankrupted. They exist now only as rebadged BMW or VW, etc, as toys for the parent companies executives.

Inexpensive cars (Kia) are more likely to be written off, crushed, abandoned, or donated to somebody’s nephew than to be sold for real money at 150k.

Expensive cars (Mercedes) are more likely to be kept running for as long as possible, regardless of cost.

Cars which sell to pragmatic, educated buyers (Toyota) are more likely to be babied for as long as possible and then sold while everything is still working for maximum resale value.

Lastly, cars with “cult” value (VW, Rover) may be driven until the wheels fall off, as opposed to being traded with high mileage.

As they say, statistics can be used to prove anything… but they usually don’t!

A lot of European car fans say this, and they have no idea why it’s not a good thing. Here’s why:

Any car will go huge miles if it’s well-maintained by a competent, proactive mechanic.

Where, say, Toyota does well is that their cars have historically done well in the hands of people who treat the car fairly well at best and like utter crap. Case in point: when my parents divorced, my mother got custody of the ‘86 Corolla they had and, since she never was responsible for it, didn’t change the oil until it started complaining. That was at 220K (kilometers) and the car went well past 500K under deplorable conditions. Trying that with, say a Saab, Mercedes or Volkswagen would result in either repair bills, or a very large paperweight.

A car is not reliable if you have to proviso every statement of it’s longevity with “in the hands of a good owner/mechanic” or “if you keep up with the maintenance”.

I also find myself agreeing with vento97,the VW
dude.Human error is responsible for numerous high
cost repairs.

Human error?

Are you implying that VW owners are stupid (and thus forgot to change oil)? I fail to see why are VW owners any more stupid than, say, a Toyota owner.

Or, are you implying that VW service people are stupid (and thus used the wrong type of oil)? Then again, it confirms that VW quality is low. Service is part of the product, and you paid for it. So, VW service is bad = VW car quality is low.

I bet the average 100,000 mile Kia that is traded in is in also in worse physical condition (dents, scratches) than the average 100,000 mile Lexus, and this is something that has to do more with buyer demographics than with vehicle quality.