Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
best for their purpose.
If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
once in a while, just about any will do.

--Vic

I can have an opinion or make assumptions about how trucks are used. I
don't think my assumptions or opinions are the same as "data."  If you
disagree with my opinions, I get that. But you need to recognize the
difference between opinions and data. Maybe I need to include "I
think," or "I beleive," or "it seems like" in front of every
statement, but wouldn't that be tiresome. And of course, you need to
do the same. When I present something as a fact, I usually try to cite
a source. Otherwise you can assume my statemens represent an opinion,
a persoanl observation, or an assumption. The statements may indeed be
wrong, or silliy, or even stupid, but they are mine.

As for how trucks are used, I can only go by what I see in my little
corner(s) of the world. Mostly, where I farm, the overwhelming choice
for pickups are Ford SuperDuties with a few F150s. Then Chevy
Silverados (mostly HD), and then Dodges (again, mostly HD). I know one
farmer with a Frontier (like I used to have), but he also has an F250.
I also know one farmer with a Tundra (the old better style). He has an
F250 also. Most of the "new" Tundras I see are parked in town. They
are new, clean, and shiny with mostly empty beds. I realize this might
be too small a sample to be meaningful beyond my area, but it is the
best I have. Maybe where you live, all the contractors love Tundras.
Where I live it seems Tundras are mostly owned by people who have day
jobs in town and plenty of time to polish the truck. It seems unlikely
to me that Contractors overwhelmingly prefer Tundras anywhere given
the relatively poor Tundra sales. Even when the new Tundra sales were
"great" they had less than 10% of the big pickup market. So unless all
the Tundra are going to contractors, it seems unlikely they can be
that common as contractor trucks anywhere. The local electric co-op
did buy one this year. It will be interesting to see if they buy more
in the future. They buy based on sealed bids, so I guess the Toyota
dealer gave them the lowest price.

Ed

I don't know what wrecking yards you frequent, but my observation is
identical to Steve's. Except that American makes are more prevalent in
wrecking yards simply due to larger new-car sales.

This morning I parked my '74 next to a Desoto and a '54 MG at work.  And
I work for an outfit that's supposed to be doing state of the art
technology, too.

The guy with the Model A wasn't there, though.  He took the Maverick in.
--scott

What drugs were you on when you wrote that?

Perhaps your personal opinion explains why there are so many Crown Vic's and
Grand Marquis in Florida and Arizona.  There are a large percentage of older
folks in those states, that are more highly educated with higher incomes,
who maintain their vehicles better and will be less likely to drive in a way
that will total the vehicle, than the purchaser of many of the small or
midget cars that do not do nearly as well with longevity because they are
more likely to keep them till they, or the car, dies.

I think one reason one may keep their Toyota longer than average new car
buyer, is the average Toyota buyers are older and more likely to be female.
They buy cars like they buy their appliances.   They rely on what they read
in magazine like CR etc., rather than real car guys that read magazines like
Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track etc.  ;)

It's a Canadian list.  That's why it doesn't have Yugo on it.

However, Peugeot, Renault, and Fiat all sold cars in the US for a while.
You don't see a lot of them on the road today for reasons that will be
immediately apparent if you ever drive one.
--scott

Every one of those problems you list were limited I believe to only one
engine - the single cam engines - on the S1's, and not the twin cam
S2s...Not sure about the amount of S1's vs. S2's that were sold though.
 As I said, they have a big following...Maybe the whole Saturn
experience that was going on back then dulled the pain of those that did
have those problems.  They had that whole Saturn homecoming weekend
where you could go to the Tennessee plant, and they used to bring the
car into the showroom while you were signing papers.  When the keys were
handed to you, the whole staff (sales, service, ect.) were there around
the car clapping like a Applebee's staff when it's someones birthday as
you drove it out of the showroom lol...Dunno...Still see a ton on the
road though...

----- Original Message -----
From: "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,alt.autos.nissan,alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.tech
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?

OK, one of of us is missing something. Were the rankings based on all the
cars of a particualr model sold during that 10 year eriod? If so, my
arguement holds. As a percentage of the total number of Toyotas sold during
the period, more f them would have been newer models. This is becasue Toyota
sales were rapidly increasing during the period. I tried to show this effect
in a prior post. It is a simple concept. Say during that period, Toyota
sales were increasing 5% a year and GM sales were stagnent.
                             percent        number
model     orignal     still on road   still on road
year        sales       in 2006         in 2006
-----     --------  -------------  -------------
Manufacturer with increasing sales
-----     --------  -------------  -------------
1986    100000        25%           25000
1987    105000        30%           31500
1988    110250        35%           38588
1989    115763        40%           46305
1990    121551        45%           54698
1991    127628        50%           63814
1992    134010        53%           71025
1993    140710        56%           78798
1994    147746        58%           85692
1995    155133        60%           93080
Total  1257789        47%         588499
-----     --------  -------------  -------------
Manufactuer with stagnent sales
-----     --------  -------------  -------------
1986    100000        25%           25000
1987    100000        30%           30000
1988    100000        35%           35000
1989    100000        40%           40000
1990    100000        45%           45000
1991    100000        50%           50000
1992    100000        53%           53000
1993    100000        56%           56000
1994    100000        58%           58000
1995    100000        60%           60000
Total  1000000        45%         452000

So, even though both manufacuters had the same percentage of each model year
vehicles on the road, the ten year average for the manufacturer with
increasing sales is 2% better than the manufacturer with stagnent sales. The
actual different might be greater or less depending on the difference in
growth rates and actual longevity of older vehicles.

My point is, that unless you have the actual raw data (sales for each year,
total number of vehicles sitll on the road for each mfg, etc) for each year,
you cannot determine anything from a list that just says manufacturer X has
Y% of car built over a ten year period still on the road. It seems like it
means more than it does.

This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas have
greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater reliability
that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But  I certainly
can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal experince
that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American cars.
In fact, I don't even think it is close given equal treatment. My Sister has
owned two Honda. Both were rolling junk in less than ten years. My parents
and myself owned a number of Fords over the same time periods she owned the
Hondas and all of them were in better condition after ten years than either
of the Hondas. I drove a 1986 Sable for ten years and more than a 140k miles
and then sold it to a friend who drove it another 60k miles before wrecking
it. My 1997 Expediton had two minor problems in 150k miles. I drove a 1992
F150 for 14 years and didn't have any problems until near the end (an
alternator and a fuel pump).  I sold it to the local water meter reader. He
still uses it every day to read meters. The absolute worst car I ever
persoanlly owned was a 1983 Toyota Cressida. It was by far the least
relaible POS I ever owned. The paint literally vaporized. The trim all
faded. The interior plastic turned white and got brittle. The transmission
failed. The AC failed. The alternator failed every summer (I mean every
summer). The starter failed. And this was all in less than 6 years and less
than 6k miles. My SO, who loves Toyotas, had a late 80's Camry Wagon. She
remembers it as a terrific car. I remember the bad paint,the crumbling
interior plastic, the engine oil leaks, the transmission oil leaks, the bad
alternator, etc. It was worse than any Ford I ever owned, BUT, she would
tell you it was a wonderful car. Maybe I only see the bad things... But I am
not joking when I say at the end it leaked so much oil that she wouldn't
park it in the garage, and it killed all the grass where she parked it in
the yard. And despite how great she thought the car was, the truth is she
spent more money on repairs for that car than I spent on Fords in 15 years.

OK, these are just my stories and have no general significance - EXCEPT to
me. But whenever people tell me how great Toyotas and Honda are, I take it
with a grain of salt. I can look out at the cars in my parking lot right now
and see a couple of old Toyotas. They are not anything I would want. They
smoke when they start, the paint is faded, one neighbor's Corolla is
constantly in the shop (alternator, starter, missing, etc). My sisters 10
year old Civic was so horrible, I told her I wouldn't sell it for her
because I would be embarresed to claim the car was worth buying. The amazing
thing was, she sold the thing overnight with a Craigslist ad. The car was
positively undriveable. Yet the guy that bought it, told me how great it was
after a test drive. I wouldn't drive it to the grocercy store. Again, these
are just my personal observations, but I have a hard time swallowing claims
of extrodinary Toyota / Honda reliability based on what I have seen. I can't
believe that I live in some alternate dimension where all the bad Toyotas
and Honda get dumped.

And before you think I am anti-Toyota, I'll point out that I just
recommended to my Mother that she should buy a Toyota Highlander. I thought
it was the car that best met her wants/needs and I do expect it to be
reliable. BUT, I don't it expect it to be more reliable than the car it
replaced - a 2005 Freestyle. I can't see how it could be more reliable since
in nearly 5 years the Freestyle never needed a single repair (not one, none,
zero).  (The Freestyle was totaled in an accident).  I also helped both my
Sisters and my SO buy RAV4s. I was not as sold on the RAV4s as I was with
the Highlander. I felt very strongly that the Highlander was the right
vehicle at the right price for my Mother. I though the RAV4s were OK, but
overpriced compared to a Ford Escape. One of the RAV4 replaced an Escape
that was also totaled in an accident. When it was totaled the Escape had
well over 100k miles and was 8 years old. It had one significant problem
over the eight yearst - a leaky brake booster. My Siser was very happy with
it, but I think shet decided to go with the flow and try something different
when the Escape was wrecked. I am going to feel really bad if any of these
Toyotas has problems, but I don't expect problems. This is not becasue I
thnk Toyotas are exceptionally reliable. It is becasue I think Toyotas are
of average reliability, but then average is very good these days.

Ed

I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but I come down on the
other side regarding VW. Never again. We have had four VW products in the
family:

1981 Audi Coupe (mine)
1986 VW Jetta (older sister)
1992 VW Passat (youger sister)
1995 VW Jetta (SO's daughter)

None of us ever will consider another VW product. I think we all agree they
feel solid, drive nicely, look good, have good ergonomics, etc. We also all
agree they are unrelaible, constantly suffer from irriating failures, and
are expensive to own. The list of failures is long - power windows, cam bet
tensioner, fuse box, fuel pumps, palstic bits, paint, dash intruments, motor
mounts, A/C, tranmsission, clutch, suspesion bushings, etc., etc.

Yeah, I used to miss my British Sports Cars, but I got over it.

Ed

Yeah, I owned three VWs in the past. The problem was that the niggling
issues were often more than "occasional," and sometimes hard to
diagnose. OTOH they have very robust engines, the bodies don't easily
rust, the paint is magnitudes better than what you get on a Honda, and
replacement parts are widely available because so many of the parts are
standard across platforms, across the world. Plus they handle better
than the typical Toyota, Honda, or big 3 vehicle of the same size.

In my area, Toyota runs an automotive technology program at a local
college and turns out copious numbers of well-trained (and continually
trained) mechanics. Difficult to diagnose problems that result in
needless swapping of expensive components are rare if you have a well
trained mechanic.