True! Hondas R GR8!Noel said:Majority of Hondas are cheap to own in terms of maintenance cost. As long as the regular service intervals for oil changes are followed even not religiously, most of them still run without a missing heartbeat a decade on.
Yes indeed -- if we want to be totally honest, that's a lot of it.pocketkiller said:Well the reason TSX won, is because the category is 25-35k...and it is at the very low end of the category. Same as BMW 3 series which is in the 35-45k category and is at the lower end. So obviously it can depreciate more than other cars in the same category and still be the lowest true cost to own. It's more of being in the right category than really being the lowest maintenance car
You're right. Leave the purchase price out, but then if you are talking about cars with maintenance plans included (which is basically padded in the price of the car), it gives them the advantage. So I agree it's a meaningless win. And I don't like the TSX being advertised so much.larchmont said:Yes indeed -- if we want to be totally honest, that's a lot of it.
In each category, the "cheapest" cars have a huge head start.
If they want to come up with something really meaningful -- i.e. to show us something that we can't get from just seeing which cars have the lowest purchase prices -- IMO they should leave the purchase price out of the equation entirely. After all, the purchase prices are easy to see, and fairly well known. And as they have it now, to a great extent they're just indicating which cars cost the least in the first place. Yes, a car with lousy MPG or lousy quality would be knocked out, but I don't see that the system they use adds much to our knowledge.
That didn't stop me from applauding the TSX. :tard: