You don't choose cars like these, you succumb to them. They creep up on you like thin hair and thick ankles. One minute you're rolling a 3 Series coupe, the next minute your wife needs room to haul her gardening stuff and the kids want rear doors and a DVD player.
It's about that time when wagon-style things like the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour and 2009 Toyota Venza start to look attractive. OK, plausible maybe.
With extra cargo room and a more comforting view of the road, these tall wagons are sort of like SUVs, only without the guilt of a gas-sucking V8 under the hood. You won't find any big, heavy truck parts underneath their skins either.
Granted, neither the Honda nor the Toyota is going to do much for your image. In fact, you can pretty much kiss good-bye whatever sliver of cool you still had left. There are no wheels tall enough nor tires wide enough to make either of these vehicles look tough. These are wagons, and it's what's inside that counts. Don't worry, though. Your friends may wince, but your family will love you.
The Station Wagon Is Back
Honda and Toyota have done their best to position these vehicles as something entirely new, crossovers that defy categorization — segment-busters, if you will. But once you cut beneath the marketingspeak, the Crosstour and the Venza are essentially Accord and Camry wagons.
There should be no shame in such vehicles, and both the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour and the 2009 Toyota Venza have the mainstream persona adopted over the years by the Accord and Camry. When you compare them with sedans, there are a few notable differences like the higher ride height and optional all-wheel-drive systems. And for better or worse, both feature unique styling. Some of this is helpful. The fact that both vehicles are treated as premium versions of their respective sedans is slightly less so.
Yes, you must pay up for the privilege of piloting these suburban carry-alls. The cheapest Honda Accord Crosstour starts at just under $30K for a front-wheel-drive model with a V6. The Venza offers a base model with an inline-4, but even that starts at $26K. Get loaded-up versions as we did and you're looking at $37,000 for the Honda and just over $39,000 for the Toyota.
To expect anything more than a sedate driving experience from either of these wagons is asking too much. They are five-passenger cocoons.
Did you think the latest in car-based family transportation was going to be cheaper than some primitive pickup-based SUV? No chance, but at these prices these crossovers do include numerous family-friendly gadgets, like navigation systems, high-end stereos, heated leather seats, plus the requisite back-up camera so you don't run over the dog.
Big Backyards
The whole point of these vehicles is the extra cargo room out back, so here's what you can expect. The Toyota Venza's cargo bay is wide and shallow. The Crosstour's space is narrow and deep. In technical terms this translates to 30.7 cubic feet of room behind the Venza's rear seats and 25.7 cubic feet in the Crosstour.
For further comparison, consider the fact that the Accord and Camry sedans offer roughly 14 cubic feet of space in their trunks. It's also worth noting that the hatchback configurations of the Crosstour and Venza make for much larger openings so there's less wedging and angling required in order to pack stuff in.
In the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour, we found that a large suitcase and a stroller fit a little tight, while the Venza had room to spare with the same load. Possibly more important is the fact that the Venza offers an optional power-operated hatch and the Crosstour doesn't. On the flip side, there are several under-floor storage bins in the Honda and none in the Toyota.
If maximum capacity is a priority, the 2009 Toyota Venza wins with a total of 70 cubic feet of space compared to the Crosstour's 50.1 cubic feet. Both vehicles have 60/40-split second-row seats and both provide levers in the cargo area to fold them flat while you're loading up.
Again, the Honda's shorter, narrower space presents more of a challenge for odd-shaped cargo like a mountain bike, although one will fit even if one section of the second-row seat is in place. In the Venza, a bike fits more easily and your kid won't be eating the tire while he's sitting in the second row.
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Aside from their sizable backsides, the Crosstour and the Venza look and feel a lot like Accord and Camry sedans. Other than its slightly higher seating position, the Crosstour feels almost identical to the Accord from behind the wheel. That's probably because the cabin is, in fact, identical to that of the Accord sedan.
This is not altogether a bad thing. It means the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour has an easy-to-read instrument cluster, high-quality interior materials and good visibility for driving. Build quality is solid, too. Other than the overcrowded mess of buttons in the middle of the dashboard, the Crosstour is a high-quality piece for a family car.
Toyota took a slightly different tack with the Venza. This Toyota crossover gets a unique interior layout compared to the Camry. There's a high-mounted shift lever on the elevated center console and a simplified climate control layout. It's all connected to a reconfigurable center console between the front seats that includes cupholders, iPod connections and extra storage room.
On the whole, though, the 2009 Toyota Venza's interior often misses the mark. The shift lever is indeed handy and the center console useful, but the rest of the cabin is too low-budget given the Venza's price. The climate controls feel frail, the wood trim isn't convincing and the texture of the steering wheel cover and dashboard is oddly rough and cheap-looking.
We also noticed that our particular Venza showed numerous signs of poor construction. Several panels on the dashboard were misaligned, while others appeared to be peeling back — not what you would expect from a company that built its reputation on quality control.
They Drive Like Sedans
To expect anything more than a sedate driving experience from either of these wagons is asking too much. They are five-passenger cocoons. You don't really drive them; you just sort of ride along.
That said, both vehicles have well-sorted suspensions and plenty of power. The Venza's V6 sends 268 horsepower through a six-speed automatic transmission, while the Crosstour uses five gears to distribute its 271 hp.
The extra gear helps the Venza quite a bit, as it hits 60 mph from a stop nearly a second quicker than the Crosstour (6.9 seconds versus 7.8 seconds), despite weighing 73 pounds more than the Honda (4,108 pounds versus 4,035 pounds).
Our seat-of-the-pants impression suggests it's not simply the Toyota's gearing that makes the difference between these two crossovers, because the Venza's transmission also shifts more deliberately and has much quicker reactions during normal driving. Stomp the throttle in the Honda and the gearbox thinks about it first before shelling out the horsepower.
It's a similar situation when it comes to handling. The 20-inch wheels and more aggressive Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires that come standard on the higher-trim Venza deliver better grip and sharper turn-in. Through the slalom they give the Toyota an advantage of about 1 mph over the Honda. Even during normal driving, the 2009 Toyota Venza feels lighter and more nimble than the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour. If it weren't for the overboosted steering, the Venza might actually be interesting to drive instead of merely pleasant.
With its smaller, less aggressive tires and softer suspension setup, the Crosstour rides more comfortably over rough surfaces. Its steering isn't much better than the Venza's, though. It always feels like it wants to spring back to center and there's minimal road feel. There's very little harshness either, though, and the cabin is generally quieter than the Venza's, so it coddles a bit more than the Toyota.
Safety First
If you're going to bite the bullet and go all in for the family, you might as well get a vehicle that includes more safety and functionality than you'll ever need. The safety part is easy in this case, as both vehicles feature multiple airbags and electronic stability control systems for protection before and during an accident.
Naturally, four-wheel antilock brakes are standard across the board and both vehicles returned similar distances in our 60-0-mph testing (129 feet for the Honda and 128 feet for the Toyota). Pedal feel is slightly better in the Venza, as the action is light and easy to modulate.
Both vehicles feature optional all-wheel-drive systems, which also add a measure of safety in poor weather. You never really know that they're even along for the ride until you encounter a loss of traction at the front wheels, which sends power immediately to the rear wheels to help out.
On rain-soaked roads we could feel the systems work only with full-throttle starts from a stop. Snow would obviously be a different story, but even front-wheel-drive versions come with standard traction control. There's a penalty for the added weight of the AWD system, though. The Venza's EPA mileage numbers drop by 1 mpg with AWD, while the Crosstour drops 2 mpg on the highway and 1 mpg in the city.
The Better of Two Good Choices
The 2009 Toyota Venza has an advantage here when it comes to day-to-day functionality because its backseats are more spacious and a DVD player is optional. The Toyota's optional keyless ignition system is another feature that's useful, and it's not available in the Honda.
As slick as the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour is inside its cabin, after a week behind the wheel of both we gave the edge to the Venza. Yes, the Toyota's build quality is disappointing, but everything else about it is perfect for the segment. You can argue about the styling all you want, but the Venza delivers a better combination of passenger space, cargo capacity and feature content.
It's also faster down a freeway on-ramp and slightly easier on the wallet at the pump. Not exactly the stuff of automotive legend, but once you take the plunge, you'll realize the compromise is worth it. Just ask the family riding with you.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
24hrz16 says:
10:00 AM, 06/12/2010
Are these cars seriously for people who think they'd be too embarassed to drive a minivan? More money for less space of these two cars vs a minivan doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like the buyer is looking for slightly better performance.
l1tech says:
06:23 AM, 01/29/2010
I LOVE WHAT YOU DO FOR ME! TOYOTA. BY GM....
to626n says:
02:04 PM, 01/26/2010
1487,
Again, I don't know why you are not able to comprehend what I am saying. The 3 Series, C Class, and ES are in the same class BECAUSE they are ALL entry level luxury vehicles that are in the same price range. The 3 Series and C Class are BMW and Mercedes' ONLY offering in the entry level luxury sedan segment. Yes the average 3 Series driver is younger, but you would be ignorant to think older people never drive the 3 Series. The median age of C Class drivers are MUCH closer to the ES. Just because automotive mags don't consider these cars as competitors, doesn't mean consumers won't. Automotive mags (usually) prioritize performance. 99.9% of people don't take their cars on a racetrack so for their driving purposes the ES, C Class, and 3 Series are ALL the same class of cars.
I challenge you to find anyone that would prefer the LaCrosse to the A6. I gaurantee you NO ONE would prefer the Buick. CLEARLY the A6 is a better car. But hey when you only look at features and value the LaCrosse looks pretty good. That is exactly what Edmunds did with the ES vs LaCrosse comparo. So what are we to conclude? In the same comparison the A6 would have also lost to the LaCrosse.
Why should you care about Toyota's reputation for reliabilty in 1975? Why should you care about any automaker's reputation for reliability in 1975? Two words: BRAND PERCEPTION. Now it's more important than ever. Notice that almost every single Chevy ad takes a knock at Toyota or Honda. Toyota and Honda don't need to attack Chevy because consumers know they have been making quality cars for almost half a century, which includes 1975. FYI EVERY long term study from CR or JD Power still favors Japanese brands.
Some other food for thought: If all the domestic automakers were not being brought to their knees due to the financial meltdown, would they still focus on quality? Look how fast they are able to turn around. They could have done this a decade or two ago. Why didn't they? Because they were still making a profit. It's sad to think the ONLY reason a company finally decides to build quality products is because it was either that or go belly up. What happens when they regain consumer confidence? Will they start cutting corners again to maximize profits?
So the Euro Focus and other Euro cars are finally able to come to America because Ford and GM somehow was recently able to figure out how to even out costs? No. Allow me to educate you. There is no miracle formula to cut costs while maintaining quality. Fact is all the domestics could have done this YEARS ago, but they didn't. Why? Because they know they could make a HIGHER profit buy selling inferior products here. For years they got away with it until consumers were finally fed up. Ford will not make as much profit selling the new Focus as they are making now with the current one. They knew they had better products overseas. Competition from the imports were so fierce here that Ford and GM were FORCED to bring those cars here. Remember they are not improving because they want to, they are improving because they are FORCED to.
If we never experienced an economic meltdown... if Ford, GM, and Chrysler were still making profits, they wouldn't give a crap about reliability. We'd still see the same shoddy cars they have been making for years. So I ask again... What happens when they start to make a profit and regain consumer confidence? What then?
1487 says:
05:55 AM, 01/25/2010
626,
You are incredibly naive. I know how 99% of cars are driven but that doesn't stop people from buying 300hp cars, sports cars, V8s, etc. for commuting purposes a corolla or Sentra will do just fine. BAsed on how cars are driven there is no reason for anyone to really own a BMW in the first place. The fact of the matter is people buy cars based on reputation, styling and what they can POTENTIALLY do. I never argued that BMW owners regularly take advantage of the handling and hp of their cars. In heavy urban traffic this isn't realistic. That said the 3 series conveys a younger, hipper image than the ES350 and appeals to a different set of buyers. As I said, MOST Es350 buyers are older- this isn't debatable. Everyone except you knows this. The 3 series is a very popular car for young singles and couples- its size, styling and reputatoin attracts a different type of buyer. BMW doesn't consider the ES350 a competitor for the 3 series, customers don't, the press doesn't- only you seem to think the two cars go head to head. It is OBVIOUS that the Lacrosse and ES350 are going after the same types of customers. It's also obvious that the Lacrosse is NOT aimed at the 3 series in any way. This is likely why the ES350 has been mentioned in Lacrosse ads and the 3 series has NOT.
"The Audi has less interior space, less features, and cost MUCH more than the LaCrosse so I guess Edmunds would have preferred the LaCrosse as well?"
Its possible but the two cars are so far apart in price that its hard to see them as direct competitors. can the LAcrosse do what the A6 does for less money and with more space? Yes.
"Toyota and Honda have been consistantly producing quality long lasting cars for the past three or four DECADES. It's going to take a lot more than a few good Fords, Chevys, and Chryslers to undo consumer preception. "
And who cares? Why do I care about quality of Toyota in 1975? Wasn't even born then. Don't care and its not relevant. Import fanboys cant get out of the past. Are you still wearning bell bottoms and listening to 8 tracks as well? The 70s are a long time ago. The 80s are a long time ago. If this was 1985 I might buy a Toyota- but sadly for Toyota its 2010 and the quality issue is a non-issue. The quality of cars in the 80s or even 90s is irrelevant to today's buyers and your thinking is shared by Toyota which explains why they are about to face tough times going forward. Like you, Toyota doesn't understand that is has to compete for buyers who may not be enamored with the company's reputation built over the last 40 years. Why would a 25 year old buyer be drawn to a Toyota showroom when he is too young to even remember the days when Toyota quality was head and shoulders above the competition? WHy would he care? When the new Focus comes out I can guarantee you any gen Y buyer who hasnt been brainwashed by their import driving parents wont consider a Corolla over the Ford for a second. The corolla is going to be severely outclassed in every way and the only people who will be denying it will be Toyota loving die hards who are still basking in Toyota's past glory. Mediocre cars are good enough for people like you who are still living in the past- but they arent good enough to convince open minded customers to buy Toyota.
A "few" domestic cars are good? Have you looked at CR or JD POwer lately? Its a lot more than a few. CR claims nearly EVERy Ford product is above average in reliability. Give credit where it's due. If you can.
"Why did it take them so long to improve quality? "
Who cares. People are buying cars TODAY so what is relevant is what's on sale TODAY. Not 20 years ago. 20 years ago most cars were undesirable by today's standards.
"They were given a choice: make quality cars or be destroyed by the imports."
Agreed. What's your point?
"Some food for thought: Until recently Ford and GM had some great cars that were only sold in Europe and Asia. Ford and Chevy were offering BETTER cars in Europe than they were in their home market, the US. Why? Why was our Focus so awful? Why do we get the Fusion while they get the Mondeo? "
Costs. Its that simple. Until recently Ford and GM didnt have the cost structures here that would allow them to sell higher content overseas based vehicles here for resonable prices. That has changed and they also believe Americans will pay more for excellent small cars. What does any of this have to do with reliability? The bottom line is their best global vehicles will be available here and that is bad news for Toyota and HOnda.
"The G8 even had a large LCD screen perfect for GPS. Ooooh thats right GM wants you to use OnStar instead."
The G8 wasnt intended as a US car from the start and something about the positioning of the nav screen supposedly didn't meet US standards. That is what I read. Again- how is this relevant?
"They could've brought those models to the US YEARS ago, GM and Ford have only been trickling in those cars recently. "
Countour was a MOndeo and it failed. Catera was an Opel- didn't do well. GTO was a Holden- didn't do well even though it was an excellent car. GM and Ford have sold overseas models here in the past but for the most part things have not worked out. European cars like the Focus sell for far more than their US counterparts and Ford had to find a way to get the costs close to what US customers are willing to pay. in EUrope they will pay $30k for a compact- not here. Believe me, the US Corolla and Civic wouldnt cut it in Europe which is one reason why Toyota/Honda arent all that successful over there.
subden says:
09:18 PM, 01/24/2010
I have to agree with Edmunds comments on Venza interior. I was really interested in the Venza as it drove nice and was fairly quick, but I just could not get over the dashboard plastic and leather seating material. Dashboard texture really does look cheap and leather seating looked cheap to me too.
Ended up buying a Murano LE whose interior was vastly improved in 2009. Not up to the standards of the loaded 2007 MB ML320 I'm getting out of, but much better than the Venza. Otherwise Venza is real decent car.
to626n says:
03:06 PM, 01/24/2010
1487,
How are you able to not comprehend what I am saying? Seriously this must be the third or fourth time I am saying this. The AVERAGE consumer (non automotive enthusiast) will see the C Class, 3 Series, and ES as being the same class of cars. Why? Because they are ALL entry level luxury sedans that are in the same price range. Automotive mags will not compare these cars because they prioritize performance. 99.9% of ALL C Classes and 3 Series' will be driven the exact same way the ES is driven: in straight lines on long highways. For the .01 % of people who take their C Class and 3 Series on a racetrack on a regular basis they should've spent their $40k on an Evo or STI.
The C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the LaCrosse because the comparison of the ES favored features and price, not performance. Both the C Class and 3 Series are smaller, has less features, and cost more than the LaCrosse. They would have lost to the Buick as well.
According to your flawed logic the FWD Audi A6 would also be in the same class as the ES and LaCrosse. Hey all are large FWD sedans right? The Audi has less interior space, less features, and cost MUCH more than the LaCrosse so I guess Edmunds would have preferred the LaCrosse as well?
As far as quality improvement among domestic brands, yes they have greatly improved over the past two or three years. But thats all. Toyota and Honda have been consistantly producing quality long lasting cars for the past three or four DECADES. It's going to take a lot more than a few good Fords, Chevys, and Chryslers to undo consumer preception. Why did it take them so long to improve quality? Because now they realize it was sink or swim. What if they never went through a financial breakdown? What if they were still able to make a profit by cranking out shoddy cars and not improving quality? You would be ignorant to think domesetics improved quality just for the heck of it. The domestics didn't start making quality cars because they wanted to, they did it because they were forced to. They were given a choice: make quality cars or be destroyed by the imports.
Fast forward ten or twenty years in the future. Detroit comes out with some great reliable cars, they regain consumer confidence in their brands. What then? Will they continue making quality cars? Or will they go back to making shoddy but stylish cars? No one knows the answer, not even you.
Some food for thought: Until recently Ford and GM had some great cars that were only sold in Europe and Asia. Ford and Chevy were offering BETTER cars in Europe than they were in their home market, the US. Why? Why was our Focus so awful? Why do we get the Fusion while they get the Mondeo? Look at China's version of the Buick Regal. It came out around 2005 and was based on the Holden Commadore. Why didn't Buick America get the same Regal? When the US finally got a version of the Commadore, it came as the Pontiac G8. Awesome car, but why could GM not offer GPS Navigation when EVERY other car in the same class offers GPS. The G8 even had a large LCD screen perfect for GPS. Ooooh thats right GM wants you to use OnStar instead.
They could've brought those models to the US YEARS ago, GM and Ford have only been trickling in those cars recently. We're still waiting on the Fiesta and new Focus. Guess they finally woke up and found out Americans want American car companies to sell good cars here too.
kingfish4 says:
02:09 PM, 01/22/2010
Both these vehicles perform the same function and resemble my old Malibu Maxx, at a price point of about $10K more. At these prices, I would be more likely to purchase a Ford Edge, a Buick Enclave, or better yet a CTS wagon.
1487 says:
06:36 AM, 01/22/2010
"Wow so according to you EVERY ES owner is in their 60's and EVERY 3 Series owner is in their 40's? You really must be dense or don't get out enough. How many times do I have to say this? To the average consumer (non automotive enthusiast), the 3 Series, C Class, ES, and even the IS are the same class of cars."
They are not and the reasons are obvious. Which is why no one else has supported you here. The ES is larger, FWD, softer, offers no manual transmission, etc. Its not aimed at the 3 series and it never has been. I didn't say EVERY ES owner is over 60 but we all know the car is aimed at an older demographic. Please show me ONE comparison done by any car magazine or site that compared the ES with the RWD cars you mentioned. Just one. Most 3 series owners wouldnt be caught dead in an ES350.
"So I say this again, looking at how skewed the comparison between the ES and LaCrosse was, the C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the Buick as well."
The fact that the ES lost doesnt make the test "skewed". You keep dancing around the reasons why it lost. Yes it was slightly faster but the ES was also more expensive, more poorly equipped, uglier, smaller and older. That is why it lost. Based on what the average LAcrosse or ES owner is looking for the 3 series would indeed lose in a comparison. If you are buying a Lacrosse you are looking for FWD and a spacious interior- the 3 series offers neither.
"You say they don't have anything but their reputaion for building reliable cars like it's meaningless. Guess what? Thats the exact kind of thinking that got Detroit in trouble in the first place. They thought they could get away with building shoddy cars as long as they were stylish and flashy. Over time they were proven dead wrong. Why did it take them this long to realize their mistake? Why didn't they fix their quality issues in the 80's and 90's?"
Your ignorance about the auto industry is apparent. You are spewing out typical Toyota fanboy talking points- I've heard them all a million times. First of all Detroit never said quality wasn't important- they just didnt know how to get quality built in for years because they had to dissect every aspect of Toyota/Honda's engineering and production systems and figure out how to implement them. financial meltdowns, unions, in-fighting, inadequate leadership, etc. meant that it took years to implement the engineering and produciton methods necessary to improve quality. It took longer than it should have but that's irrelevant now- its been done. Stylish and flashy? WHat 80s cars are you talking about? This idea that they tried to distract people with flashy cars in the 80s in nonsense- most cars in the 80s were dull including the American ones. The 80s is actually when many of the changes were being implemented to catch up to the Japanese. Reliability isnt meaningless, but its not the only reason to buy a car. At least for people who buy anything other than Toyota. Now that reliability is solid across the board its going to take more than claims about reliability to remain relevant. Ford and hyundai gained share in 2009 and neither has the reputation of Toyota or Honda. Value, features, styling, warranty protection and innovation are important these days and you don't see Toyota or Honda leading in any of those categories aside from Toyota's hybrids. Within the next 5 years VW, Hyundai, GM and Ford will be coming on strong and their gains will be at the expense of Toyota and Honda. You can see how the battle is shaping up based on future product. Honda has little to talk about, Toyota is promising more dull hybrids and little else and GM, Ford, Hyundai and VW are preparing full fledged product assaults primarily in the segments long dominated by the Japanese.
to626n says:
12:47 AM, 01/22/2010
1487,
Wow so according to you EVERY ES owner is in their 60's and EVERY 3 Series owner is in their 40's? You really must be dense or don't get out enough. How many times do I have to say this? To the average consumer (non automotive enthusiast), the 3 Series, C Class, ES, and even the IS are the same class of cars. They are ALL entry level luxury sedans that are in the same price range. The average consumer won't notice the difference between a FWD car and a RWD car. Why? Because 99.9% of all C Classes and 3 Series will be driven the exact same way any ordinary ES would be driven, that is in straight lines on long highways. For that .01% who take their C Class and 3 Series on a racetrack on a regular basis, they probably would have been more satisfied spending their $40k on an Evo or STI. So I say this again, looking at how skewed the comparison between the ES and LaCrosse was, the C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the Buick as well. Sure they perform better, but it's not as spacious, cost more, and had less features than the LaCrosse. It's exactly why the ES lost.
Just for fun, lets forget about the C Class and 3 Series. Lets say they compared the LaCrosse to a FWD Audi A6. Hey it's also a large FWD luxury sedan right? Sure the A6 will outperform the LaCrosse in EVERY way. But it cost a lot more than both the LaCrosse and the ES, has less interior space, and has less features. So I guess Edmunds would prefer the LaCrosse over the A6 as well?
In response to your response to AJT, it's going to take a lot more than a dozen or so decent domestic cars to undo Toyota and Honda's reputation for building quality vehicles over that past thirty or forty years. You say they don't have anything but their reputaion for building reliable cars like it's meaningless. Guess what? Thats the exact kind of thinking that got Detroit in trouble in the first place. They thought they could get away with building shoddy cars as long as they were stylish and flashy. Over time they were proven dead wrong. Why did it take them this long to realize their mistake? Why didn't they fix their quality issues in the 80's and 90's? Because they thought they could still make a profit. Over time the consumers spoke, and the only reason why they are changing now is because they realize that if they don't they will be oblitorated by the imports. So now I wonder what will happen when the domestics regain the consumer's confidence? Will they continue to design vehicles with quality as a top priority? Or will they cut back on quality to maximize profits? ... And like I said before no one knows the answer, not even you.
1487 says:
11:30 AM, 01/21/2010
AJT:
Suppose I either a) dont care about keeping a car for 15 years/200k miles or b) believe that most cars can go the distance due to the general high quality of vehicles today. With that assumption in hand explain to me why I should be a devoted Toyota or Honda purchaser that generally refuses to acknowledge or even research the competition.
Toyota and Honda have realized they dont have anything left beyond their reputations and that is why they are now engineering by marketing. Both companies ads have drifted from talking about vehicles and attributes to unsubstantiated claims about quality and reliability and claims about how many 20 year old cars are on the road. Quality is great but everyone offers it today. Which is one reason why GM, Ford and Hyundai arent afraid to offer better warranty protection than Honda or Toyota.