One slush to another...

[Squint]

I dunno... I thought I did my homework pretty well. Maybe not.

I don't know that I was (don't know if others were) questioning your homework as much as just pointing out the major difference between the luxury brands and non-luxury brands. Any modern car can be reasonably expected, with some expenses, to go well over 100k, and hopefully well past 200k on the engineering side.

With a luxury brand, you'll just higher expenses for the same repair. I remember a service writer at the dealership mentioning something about replacing an alternator on a BMW X5 and it costing twice as much because of the design of the whole system. Something about water cooled or integrated or something. I was only overhearing this discussion as I waited for him to finish talking to that customer.

[Shadow]

I give this car an 85% chance of making it to 200k miles.

Any modern car can make it to 200K miles. The real question is how much money will you have to sink into it during that time? I have to agree with the others that Audi isn't exactly known for reliability or trouble-free miles. I knew that before I got mine and I didn't have any such expectations that it would be as bulletproof as my Toyota. And I'm fine with that. But after 2.5 years of owning it so far, I'm happy to say that it has never been back to the dealership, not even once. So far, so good.

[Shadow]

The Grand Cherokee can be an amazing vehicle. Or it can suck. Do not get a sunroof. Do not get air ride. Do not buy older than a 2013.

2014 has 8-speed automatic. That's a good thing. I don't want air suspension and I'm leaning towards no sunroof at all....but only because my last ten cars have all had sunroofs and I honestly keep them closed 99% of the time.

[Shadow]

Seriously then, why would you even consider getting the jeep?

Why not? There's more to reliability when it comes to choosing one vehicle over another. The Jeep is so much more modern than my 4Runner that it's not even funny. My 4Runner has given me 10 years of trouble-free driving. But still, consider the odds--which is more likely to give me trouble-free driving today, a 10-year-old 4Runner or a brand new Jeep? I'm guessing that I'll eventually have to spend some money on repairs for the 4Runner. The Jeep, on the other hand, should give me at least a few years of driving without any problems. And if I do have problems, it comes with a full warranty for 3 years and a powertrain warranty for 5 years.

There's no gain in paddle shifters.

Actually, there is a gain....you can shift with them if you feel like manually controlling the gear ratios. Not all automatics have the ability to shift through the gears. And for the ones that do, not all of them have paddles on the steering wheel. Some require you to shift with the gearshift lever instead. Personally, I'm not big on shifting an automatic anyway, but if I'm going to do it, I'd definitely prefer the paddles.

[watkins]

[quote="ShadowThe Jeep, on the other hand, should give me at least a few years of driving without any problems. [/quote]
You are a funny, funny man.








Really, the problems usually arent too bad and Chrysler is generally pretty good about covering problems that may arise.

[zenfiz6]

My 2002 GMC Sierra 1500, [the] Engine definitely sounds old now...but it's still running strong. It has suffered worse abuses than the transmission. Not sure how much life it has left but when it fails I'll probably just replace the engine, they're inexpensive.

Well, these are always the questions, right? Do I spend $6k and replace an engine and transmission or spend $25-35k and buy something new(er) that might be more powerful or have more toys? I think this is the question Shadow is facing right now. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. It's a personality-based decision. I wanted something newer this go-around. And, for better or for worse, I'm really enjoying the hell out of this A4.

There's no make or model on the market today that doesn't meet your longevity criteria (except in cases of severe neglect, severe abuse, or vehicles driven only 2,000 miles per year).

Really? 95% of all engines and transmissions manufactured today routinely exceed (or are expected to exceed) 200k miles? I find this hard to believe. But I don't know where to go get those numbers. But if 200k miles is not the right reliability metric? What is?

85% was your number, not 95%. I would certainly expect 85% that are not neglected or severely abused to exceed 200,000 miles, and probably still 85% even when you don't qualify it with the neglect/abuse provision...but either way you aren't going to neglect or severely abuse it, are you?

I put your line back in for context because you implied the 95+% for all cars, not me.

I appreciate the expectation, but I'm not buying it. In fact, in 2006 March, NBC reported that:

Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/) says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle these days is around 8 years or 150,000 miles.

Granted, that was 7 years ago, now. But I don't think things have changed that drastically in that amount of time.

Tangent: That last thing about market value causes a selection bias wherein vehicles with higher market value near end-of-life continue to get repairs and therefore gain a reputation for longevity while vehicles with lower market value get junked and gain a reputation for short life. (Those low market value vehicles are extremely cost-effective beaters since purchase price is low and the junkyard is full of parts for them.) It probably becomes a feedback loop where the reputation for longevity (or not) further affects market value.

This is an interesting observation. Then, maybe, the metric is not how long they're on the road, but the average cost of repairs over the years. And this data is available... "cost to own."

I didn't remember that you had that many miles [on your Accord], though. Usually when people talk about longevity I ask them how many engines or transmissions they've replaced because most people simply don't keep a vehicle for the entire length of its useful service life -- so it really shouldn't be as important to them as it seems to be.

Well, I'd ask you how you define "service life." For me, for now, if the engine or slushbox goes, that's pretty much the end of the vehicle. For any car I would consider, that event would happen far enough in the future that I'd be ready for something newer, more powerful, more gas efficient, with a new toy or two, that runs on dilithium, etc. I'm not sure where I stand with manual transmissions, however. I'm going to guess that the $3k I researched to replace the Accord's slushbox will be about equal to the cost of replacing the A4's gearbox. Do I move on at that point? I'm sure that decision will depend on what's available and how much cold, hard financing I can get.

[theholycow]

My 2002 GMC Sierra 1500, [the] Engine definitely sounds old now...but it's still running strong. It has suffered worse abuses than the transmission. Not sure how much life it has left but when it fails I'll probably just replace the engine, they're inexpensive.

Well, these are always the questions, right? Do I spend $6k and replace an engine and transmission or spend $25-35k and buy something new(er) that might be more powerful or have more toys? I think this is the question Shadow is facing right now.

Shadow would face that question if such a failure happened, but his Toyota reportedly shows no sign of quitting. It's not wrong to replace it but I wouldn't lump it in with your Accord's slushbox failure as end-of-life.

In my case it would be under $500, not upwards of $6k.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. It's a personality-based decision. I wanted something newer this go-around. And, for better or for worse, I'm really enjoying the hell out of this A4.

Wanting something newer or different is a different issue than a vehicle not being worth repairing. Wanting something newer or different is why most people get rid of a vehicle...very few people have a vehicle when its useful service life ends, especially not those who buy the vehicle new.

I appreciate the expectation, but I'm not buying it. In fact, in 2006 March, NBC reported that:

Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/) says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle these days is around 8 years or 150,000 miles.

Granted, that was 7 years ago, now. But I don't think things have changed that drastically in that amount of time.

Over the years I have learned the Consumer Reports is generally wrong about everything in every way.

Except for the car that I beat the everliving hell out of when I was 19*, I've never heard of a vehicle suffering a severe failure before 8 years and 150,000 miles. Can you provide some data? Who here had a car less than 8 years old and less than 150,000 miles need a new engine or transmission other than teenage me?

I always ask for this data in these threads. I almost never get a single data point. Your Accord made it almost 100,000 miles more than what CR says to expect, after all.

*: In that car I always had at least one pedal floored, sometimes both. I rarely went less than the 105mph limiter. In the winter I'd floor both pedals while driving to make it warm up faster. I didn't do any maintenance other than oil changes. The engine I had is known for major upper end failures and I hastened those so they happened at 130,000 miles, when the car was maybe 3 or 4 years old. A $1200 engine was still fine when the rest of the car hit 200,000, I heard from the second owner, and the original slushbox miraculously survived too. (I was a real idiot.)

Well, I'd ask you how you define "service life." For me, for now, if the engine or slushbox goes, that's pretty much the end of the vehicle. For any car I would consider, that event would happen far enough in the future that I'd be ready for something newer, more powerful, more gas efficient, with a new toy or two, that runs on dilithium, etc. I'm not sure where I stand with manual transmissions, however. I'm going to guess that the $3k I researched to replace the Accord's slushbox will be about equal to the cost of replacing the A4's gearbox. Do I move on at that point? I'm sure that decision will depend on what's available and how much cold, hard financing I can get.

For an old vehicle with a lot of miles I'd say engine/slushbox failure is a good definition of useful service life. For a vehicle with only 8 years and 150,000 miles on it, if it's not $6k to repair then it may well be worth repairing (a la the car I flogged to death).

[zenfiz6]

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. It's a personality-based decision. I wanted something newer this go-around. And, for better or for worse, I'm really enjoying the hell out of this A4.

Wanting something newer or different is a different issue than a vehicle not being worth repairing.

I disagree. "Worth repairing" itself is a subjective judgement call. If you could buy a brand new "X" that was exactly like your existing "X," or fix your existing "X," then you'd weight most of your argument on how much the two decisions would cost. But when you compare your broken "X" with a brand new "Y," now things get much more complicated. Weighing cost of repair over cost of new toys and possible cost of future repairs.... This isn't simple unless the short-term cost of buying something new(er) is totally out of the question.

I appreciate the expectation, but I'm not buying it. In fact, in 2006 March, NBC reported that:

Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/) says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle these days is around 8 years or 150,000 miles.

Granted, that was 7 years ago, now. But I don't think things have changed that drastically in that amount of time.

Over the years I have learned the Consumer Reports is generally wrong about everything in every way.

Except for the car that I beat the everliving hell out of when I was 19*, I've never heard of a vehicle suffering a severe failure before 8 years and 150,000 miles. Can you provide some data?

Can I provide data? Holy crap. CR has more data at their disposal than you or I or this entire board combined. You want to go up against CR with anecdotal evidence of some dozens of experiences vs. their database of 10s of thousands of cars?

Notwithstanding the statistical weight they carry, you have to be careful of our bias. I think most of us on this board and most of our car-savvy friends tend to shy away from the crap that's out there. We would never buy anything that we thought was faulty even if it were within our budgets (or the car gurus buy them and fix them with quality parts). But the general public buys every make and model of car (if they didn't, those cars wouldn't stay on the market) and you have to average over those cars, too.

You could say, "Out of all the cars anyone I know would buy, you could almost guarantee 200k miles." which sounds more like the point you're trying to make. Ok, but now you have the fun task of listing those cars. And, when I made my decision on the A4, I didn't have your list handy.

I always ask for this data in these threads. I almost never get a single data point.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your Accord made it almost 100,000 miles more than what CR says to expect, after all.

Yes. But the Hondas and Toyotas are known for this. And my own experience is a single data point. Now, add in the cars on the opposite end of the spectrum and take the average. I'll bet you get near 150k miles.

Usually when people talk about longevity I ask them how many engines or transmissions they've replaced because most people simply don't keep a vehicle for the entire length of its useful service life

Well, I'd ask you how you define "service life." For me, for now, if the engine or slushbox goes, that's pretty much the end of the vehicle.

For an old vehicle with a lot of miles I'd say engine/slushbox failure is a good definition of useful service life. For a vehicle with only 8 years and 150,000 miles on it, if it's not $6k to repair then it may well be worth repairing

Ok... again, I needed to put your statement back in for context. But "worth repairing" and "end of service life" are different concepts, so I can't tell if we agree on this or not.

[Shadow]

You are a funny, funny man.








Really, the problems usually arent too bad and Chrysler is generally pretty good about covering problems that may arise.

I wasn't trying to be funny.....just realistic. My expectations are low for any Chrysler product, Jeep included. That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one though. Actually, now that I think about it, the only Chrysler products that even slightly interest me are Jeeps.

[Shadow]

Well, these are always the questions, right? Do I spend $6k and replace an engine and transmission or spend $25-35k and buy something new(er) that might be more powerful or have more toys? I think this is the question Shadow is facing right now.

Not really. In my case, the idea of selling my 4Runner and buying a shiny new Jeep is based almost entirely on "wants" and not "needs". Sure, my 4Runner has been bulletproof and it doesn't show any signs of trouble ahead. I could very well get quite a few more years out of it without issue....or maybe not. It's impossible to predict either way. But the fact of the matter is that my 4Runner is now ten years old. I like tech in my cars. The Jeep has TONS of it (way more than my Audi) and from what I've seen, it actually works very well. The Jeep is also more powerful while also returning better fuel economy. It's also more modern looking. Plus, it will have that new car smell! Okay, don't really care much about that last one, but the rest of those things are reasons why I'm thinking of taking the plunge and selling a perfectly good 4Runner that has served me so well. After ten years, it might be time to move on....

[Shadow]

Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/) says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle these days is around 8 years or 150,000 miles.

That certainly doesn't sound correct. Wasn't it Consumer Reports that recently reported that the average age of all cars on the roads today is 7 years? So if the average life expectancy is 8 years, then it doesn't seem likely that the average age of cars on the road is 7 years old...

[Shadow]

Hmm....seems that the average age of cars today is closer to 11 years old:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/au ... 52613102/1

[zenfiz6]

Hmm....seems that the average age of cars today is closer to 11 years old:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/au ... 52613102/1

Yes, I read that, too, in a few places.

So 11 years times 15,000 mi/year = 165,000 miles average.

A bit more than the CR report 7 years ago.

[Shadow]

Hmm....seems that the average age of cars today is closer to 11 years old:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/au ... 52613102/1

Yes, I read that, too, in a few places.

So 11 years times 15,000 mi/year = 165,000 miles average.

A bit more than the CR report 7 years ago.

Sure, we can assume an average of 15K miles per year. What would you say if I told you that lots of people don't maintain their cars as they should. Or that they simply don't take care of them very well. You know those people who make no attempt to avoid potholes, don't change their oil as often as they should, don't believe in any kind of preventive maintenance at all. Take those people out of the equation and I'd say the average would rise quite a bit. Like I said, any modern car can make it to 200K miles, even a crappy one. It all depends how much money you're willing to spend to keep it running to reach that milestone. Some cars will obviously require more repairs than others. But all cars will benefit from being maintained properly and driven by an owner who doesn't beat the snot out of it.

[zenfiz6]

Hmm....seems that the average age of cars today is closer to 11 years old:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/au ... 52613102/1

Yes, I read that, too, in a few places.

So 11 years times 15,000 mi/year = 165,000 miles average.

A bit more than the CR report 7 years ago.

Sure, we can assume an average of 15K miles per year. What would you say if I told you that lots of people don't maintain their cars as they should.

I would agree. Though I couldn't begin to guess what percentage of people that encompasses and, therefore, how that would skew the results.

Take those people out of the equation and I'd say the average would rise quite a bit.

Rise, yes. "Quite a bit?" Depends on what you mean and what the data would support. I can't say more without that.

Like I said, any modern car can make it to 200K miles, even a crappy one. It all depends how much money you're willing to spend to keep it running to reach that milestone. Some cars will obviously require more repairs than others. But all cars will benefit from being maintained properly and driven by an owner who doesn't beat the snot out of it.

I agree that every single car in existence could make it to 200k. The question is, how much of the original will be left at the 200k mile marker?

I guess this just points to the fact that, maybe, my metric of 200k miles was a poor one. Maybe the right metric would be something closer to a "Cost To Own" metric. Although it's hard to separate the expensive upkeep with replacement of expensive parts (like, oh, say the engine or tranny).