If you're looking for a car that will just keep going, get a Jeep Wrangler.

I have one, it's got 140,000 miles on it, but it still runs like a top and I have absolutely no desire to sell it (and selling it would be easy. I work in the automotive industry).

(Here's my jeep: http://thingist.com/t/item/4204/ - bone stock and I love it).

To stay on topic, I think there is something to be said about the "cheap" brands. My Jeep, is a "cheap" car (it's worth about $5000), but it's a workhorse. I don't think twice about hauling the dog around in it after she's been swimming in the mud, I don't bat an eye when I need to literally pressure-wash the interior, I patched a hole in one of the seats with duct tape, I once made a top for it out of a tarp and some rope (I had my little sister with me and it started raining), there are scratches along the back tailgate from loading it full of mountain bikes and shuttling them up the side of a mountain, I've slept in the back of it many times, etc. etc.

A friend of mine has a Porsche Cayenne. It's really nice, and has a matching +$100,000 price tag. He doesn't let the dogs in it, he covers the leather seats with a blanket when he sets anything on top of them, it's never left the pavement, spilling anything on the interior would be a catastrophe, etc.

From my perspective, he's getting less value for his $100,000 than I am for my $5,000 because he's constantly afraid of breaking it or spoiling it (well, losing on his investment, more accurately).

I think the Porsche vs Jeep debate could be the same as the Nook vs iPad debate. Yeah, an iPad can "do more", it's more valuable, costs more money, it's shinier, it has a faster processor, it's a "better".

But I think I'd be in constant fear of breaking it. It would probably stay in my house most of the time. The nook, on the other hand, costs 1/4 of an iPad, it would go with me everywhere.

Somebody like me would probably get more value out of a nook than an iPad, despite the iPad being technically better.

Kia has a 10-year, 100k mile powertrain warranty. How could they do that if their cars were mostly trash after 50-100k miles?

The paint could blister and peel, the door seals could rot, the dashboard could crack from UV exposure, the shock absorbers could leak, the wipers could seize, the steering could become loose and noisy, etc.

I haven't owned a Kia, nor do I have anything against them, I'm just being pedantic and pointing out that you could fulfill a 100k powertrain warranty and still end up with a car that's mostly trash. :-)

They also have a 5-year 50,000 bumper-to-bumper warranty. I had an issue with my glovebox on my an Hyundai Elantra (same company) It was my fault (long story), but they gladly replaced at 40k miles.

I'm a huge fan. I now own a Kia soul. In the two years I've had it it's been rock solid.

A Kia is a Kia (Sportage). You get a modest car for a modest price. But in fairness, the paint, interior, controls were in great shape on the day it died after 10 years. No complaints.

Like I said, I was merely responding to the parent comment's assertion that you couldn't have a car that was mostly trash at 50-100k miles if it has a 100k powertrain warranty.

Just regular maintenance. I loved the car. I just wanted something that went from A to B and it did it until it's dying day.