RangerM

When I look at long warranty offerings, I'm of the opinion that the manufacturer is counting on NOT having to spend money honoring them. It may not be a direct measure of quality, but I believe it's an indicator of the manufacturer's belief in the reliability of the product. For lack of a better term, it's a bet. Long warranty=Manufacturer is betting on not spending money to fix problems within that time frame. Short warranty=I'm betting I won't have to spend money for the near term after the warranty expires.

The Hyundai 10/100k certainly had an impact when purchasing my wife's Santa Fe. I don't know why anyone would simply disregard warranty periods. Admittedly, we used it once when a transmission harness (wiring) went bad, and was covered at ~63k. The only caveat I know of with the Hyundai/Kia warranty is it isn't transferable. I don't recall when Ford went to 5/60k, but it's always good when a manufacturer stands behind their product. My Ranger was 3/36k. That said, GM was probably spending too much money fixing the ignition switch problem and the money had to come from somewhere. Cutting the warranty 40% is an easy way.

I'd think most peoples' lament is when you overlay a same-year Zephyr with a Fusion and they damn near match. The MKZ and Fusion look pretty different now (to me). Although, I do wonder if you hear similar comparisons when other automakers do it. How many auto journalists mention the Jetta when they review an A4, or Camry/Avalon when they review a E350?

Perhaps this has been addressed, but how does a guy who says his mother bought him a sewing machine and let him (yes, him) play with dolls sell Cadillacs? Daring to be different means THAT different? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdpiZ9nnhc

Has anything predicted since about 1995 pertaining to the negative effects of [insert MMGW, climate change, etc here] actually happened? Notwithstanding, has anyone established what "Earth Temperature" is supposed to be?

I'd thought that when a vehicle is repaired under warranty, there is a "pot" that the money comes from for that specific vehicle that is tied to the original selling dealer. If the work is performed by another dealer, the money comes from the original dealer's "pot". And that "pot" is tied to original dealer holdback(s). Not true? (not sure I'm making sense here)

Is any investment in GM a belief in the power of the brand, the product, or the management? If the brand, then what does GM bring over other brands (including those non-automotive). If the product, then unless you know something that others don't, then any judgement must be based on current product. GM still makes some decent vehicles, but where are the "diamonds in the rough"? I haven't seen any products that are equal to or superior than their competitors that don't already sell. If the management, then are they skilled at cutting to maximize short term profits, developing new wonder cars, or do they have superior ability to manage the overall corporate portfolio? If I'm going to invest in a singular stock, it's about the product and whether or not I believe in it.

While I can agree with some of what you've said, I think a headline like "Death-Proof Cars" is misleading at best.

Not sure how useful the information is without considering passenger fatalities. I can acknowledge the unreliability of the information (according to the article), but I still think it might be an important metric, since I'd more heavily weigh the safety of my kids over myself.

If Ford is the benchmark to which all others are compared, they must be doing something right.

What's the rush? If you're always flooring it, you may want to eliminate some things from your schedule.

I'll admit it. I still park my truck waayyy out from the store, and always on an end spot. It's not like I'm being "Corvette guy" and taking up two spaces, but I've managed to go 17 months without a single door ding.

That's not the only damaged crease however. Here's the picture of the damage. Notice the horizontal body panel crease that runs from the top of the taillight forward. (1:30 of the part 1 video) That doesn't exist on a 2013. It may be insignificant enough that it easily pops back in place, but I don't know. If it doesn't simply pop back, I'd think it won't be easy to get it back to the same smoothness of the original. Here's a picture of the other side so you can more easily see the facet between that crease and the bedrail.

I don't know if it's a problem any more, but in past model years, car's wiring systems weren't able to handle the load of HIDs. (the ballasts drew too much current, iirc)

Perhaps. I'm not a body man. I'd just think trying to pull out and line up creases would be a bitch, unless the plan is to just body-putty over it, like a drywall tech does nail heads and seams. I'd also imagine trying to get the paint right on some exclusive, Lariat/Platinum-only color might be problematic, as well. I know my wife's pearl Hyundai paint wasn't available when they were fixing her car after an accident. The panels won't overlay because they aren't the same shape. There are bound to be more creases in one panel than the other. From the video, it looks like the 2015 has more of them than my 2013.

Agreed. They're taking their conclusion and working backwards.

I'm referring to the creases and facets. I imagine you can't lay a panel from a 2014 on top of a 2015, and they'll lay together, will they?

But then the experiment becomes the cost difference between a 2015 and a 2014, not the difference between steel and aluminum (alone--which is the premise of the article, as I interpret it). That's the point. There's more at play than just the cost of the materials.

I suppose you could beat one from a 2014, but given the panels aren't the same (not in materials, but in the way they're stamped), I'm not sure it would be meaningful.

Given the premise of the article was to compare the cost of repairing an aluminum panel vs. a steel one, it seems a bit odd to factor the cost of the plastic taillight into it (and bitch about it) in the first place.

If you're performing your test to prove your desired conclusion, apparently yes.

I think his complaint was based on the integration of the multiple functions within the taillight. The taillight still worked; just cracked. That said, when faced with an $887 (out of pocket) fix for a simple cracked lens, I think I'd likely seal it with a $4.00 tube of clear silicone. Maybe when they lose a job as journalists, they blame the readers and not their journalism.

They did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHOE2rpDQ3w

I don't know how they missed the Aspire and the early '90s Capri----and given their criticism of badge engineering----the LN7 or that the Mark VI & Town Coupe were sold at the same time. I'm sure there are others that I haven't thought of.

Iirc, when the engine never heats up the computer will keep it in "warm up" mode. In my old Ranger, this would take a little away from mpgs. My old Ranger would eat thermostats--the wax plug variety. In every case, a new thermostat fixed the issue. Before I gave it to my BIL, I used to keep a spare on hand. My truck probably got 5 or more in the 20 years I had it. And yes, I still got a little warmth while driving, but the temp gauge did exactly what the op described and only came up a little.