Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
C. E. White - 15 Mar 2007 21:51 GMT
Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....

Lou Kaltenstein
President
Gene Norris Buick-GMC Trucks Inc./Norris Auto Group
18170 Bagley Rd
Middleburg Hts., Ohio 44130

There has been a lot of talk about Toyota Tundra's new ads and how
impressive they are. Here are some myths about their spots that I have
found and that should be refuted. Also, they are offering a "IVC" type
program on Tundra to help with sales.

I would guess all of you have seen the ad where the Tundra pulls a
trailer up a steep grade (a 'see-saw'), and then barrels down hill and
locks the brakes up just before the end of the ramp. Many of you have
commented on how well done the spot is visually. However, here are the
actual facts to share with people:

1. The V.O. at the beginning of the spot says...."It's tough pushing
10,000 lbs up a steep grade". Myth: Toyota would like the audience to
believe the trailer is 10,000 lbs. Fact: It's a 5,000 lb truck pulling
a 5,000 lb trailer. A little slight of hand? You bet.

2. Then, on the way down the grade, the camera zooms in on the brakes
as the vehicles comes to a screeching halt just prior to the end of
ramp. Next time you see the ad....look for the 'mice type'. It
indicates the trailer is equipped with electric brakes. Fact....the
electric brakes stop the trailer -- not the truck. A little slight of
hand? You bet.

3. And why does Toyota have bigger brake pads? They need them....their
truck is heavier. Stopping distance between our truck and theirs is
virtually identical. And why does Toyota have a 6 speed transmission?
To improve their fuel economy....which is still 2 mpg less than ours.

4. And don't forget....their big V8 has one axle ratio -- a 4.3. Suck
fuel much? Our trucks offer several axle options to optimize towing
and fuel economy.

Ed
zonie - 16 Mar 2007 03:11 GMT
Time will tell what the Tundra can do. Sounds like the GM people are
nervous about somebody coming up with competition. He forgets to mention
taht also with the 4.3 axle ratio the Tndra has a 6 speed auto which
probably about equals their higher ratios with the 4 speed auto that they
have. Scott
Mike Hunter - 16 Mar 2007 21:54 GMT
Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells 35%
of the full-size trucks in the US.  Chevy 30% and Toyota a measly 5%.  The
base engine in the Tundra is a only a V6.  The F150 has a six speed and a V8
is standard as well.  The Tundra is just beginning to catch up to the build
quality of what GM, Ford and Dodge have been offering in their truck for
years

mike

> Time will tell what the Tundra can do. Sounds like the GM people are
> nervous about somebody coming up with competition. He forgets to mention
> taht also with the 4.3 axle ratio the Tndra has a 6 speed auto which
> probably about equals their higher ratios with the 4 speed auto that they
> have. Scott
Ed White - 16 Mar 2007 23:02 GMT
> Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells 35%
> of the full-size trucks in the US.  Chevy 30% and Toyota a measly 5%.  The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> mike

Mike,

Actually Ford and Chevrolet also have standard V-6s in their half ton
pickup trucks.  When I was shopping for a pickup last year it was much
easier to find a V-6 F150 than a V-6 Tundra. There was not a single
V-6 Tundra on any of the local lots for me to test drive. V-6 F150
were easy to fiind.

Ed
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 01:06 GMT
No so, all F150s with the trailer tow package have the 4.5 V8 standard.

mike

>> Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells
>> 35%
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Ed
zonie - 17 Mar 2007 04:01 GMT
I did not say the Toyota was better. I know GM builds a great truck. I
worked for Chevy dealer for 33 years. I know Toyota is just coming into
the large pick-up market and has some thing to learn. That does not mean
that their product is not a good truck. GM's build quality is up to world
standard now ,I agree with that. But Toyota has always had build quality
the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott
Wickeddoll® - 17 Mar 2007 04:34 GMT
>I did not say the Toyota was better. I know GM builds a great truck. I
> worked for Chevy dealer for 33 years. I know Toyota is just coming into
> the large pick-up market and has some thing to learn. That does not mean
> that their product is not a good truck. GM's build quality is up to world
> standard now ,I agree with that. But Toyota has always had build quality
> the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott

Very well put.  I'd probably buy a domestic truck, though.  As you said,
Toyota's lagging there.

Natalie
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 19:32 GMT
I never said Toyota did not build a good truck, they do.  What I said was
Toyota is just now starting to catch up to the build quality of domestics
truck, not now building one 'better' than the domestics, as the Tundra TV
ads imply.  Why in the world would GM, Ford and Dodge 'wish' to build a
lesser truck in any event?   ;)

mike

>I did not say the Toyota was better. I know GM builds a great truck. I
> worked for Chevy dealer for 33 years. I know Toyota is just coming into
> the large pick-up market and has some thing to learn. That does not mean
> that their product is not a good truck. GM's build quality is up to world
> standard now ,I agree with that. But Toyota has always had build quality
> the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott
Jeff - 17 Mar 2007 20:40 GMT
>I never said Toyota did not build a good truck, they do.  What I said was
>Toyota is just now starting to catch up to the build quality of domestics
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> standard now ,I agree with that. But Toyota has always had build quality
>> the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott

What do you expect them to do? Say, "GM and Ford make better trucks?" Of
course, they are going to try to show they have a better truck. Just like
Coke and Pepsi both try to say they are better than the other.

Jeff
Ed White - 19 Mar 2007 19:48 GMT
> But Toyota has always had build quality
> the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott

You must be very young or have a very bad memory. Early 70's Toyota
were steaming piles of crap. The 84s Cressida I owned was still a poor
quality imitation of a 1968 Nova.

Ed
Wickeddoll® - 19 Mar 2007 19:55 GMT
"Ed White" ...
"zonie" <sjemoomaw@nospam> wrote:

>> But Toyota has always had build quality
>> the rest of the world wishes they had.   Scott
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ed

Gotta go with Ed on that one.  Early Toyotas were craptacular.  But unlike
GM, they learned from their mistakes...

Natalie
Ed White - 19 Mar 2007 19:45 GMT
> No so, all F150s with the trailer tow package have the 4.5 V8 standard.
>
> mike

But not all F150s have the Trailer Tow Package. And no F150 come with
a 4.5 V8.

You said "The F150 has a six speed and a V8 is standard as well." This
is an incorrect statement since neither a V-8 or a six speed
transmission is standard (and the six speed transmission isn't even an
option). And your revised statement is also incorrect. Go to www.fordvehicles.com
and build an F150. Selecting the Trailer Tow Package does not reuire
the V-8 or an automatic transmission. And finally, Ford doesn't offer
a 6 speed transmission in the 2007 F150 (they do in the 2007
Expedition).

The following information was clipped directly from the 2007 Ford F150
Ordering Guide:

------

TRAILER TOW PACKAGE (535)
Usage: Required for towing over 5,000 lbs.
Availability:
· All F-150 units
Includes:
· Class IV trailer hitch receiver
· 7-pin wiring harness
· Upgraded radiator & upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler [req.
4.6L V8
(99W), 5.4L 3V V8 (995) or 5.4L 3V V8 FFV(99V) engine; auxiliary
transmission oil cooler only w/4.2L V6 A/T (992/44Q)]
Optional Equipment:
· Heavy duty 72-amp battery (59H) [incl. when ordered w/both Satellite
Radio
(91S) & Rear Seat Entertainment System (915)]

------

Notice that the Trailer Tow Package is availale with all F150 Units.
Also notice that it includes an "auxiliary transmission oil cooler
only w/4.2L V6 A/T" Please admit that the trailer tow package is
available with the 4.2L V-6.

As for the Powertrain Options:

-----

POWERTRAIN
4.2L EFI V6/5-Spd. Manual O/D
4.2L EFI v6/4-Spd. Auto O/D
4.6L EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
5.4L 3V EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
5.4L 3V EFI V8 FFV/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D

-----

Ed

> >> Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells
> >> 35%
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Hunter - 20 Mar 2007 01:25 GMT
Aparently have not been following the thread.  The dicsssion was about
Tundra phony TV ads and their 10,000 towing ability. .  If one is looking to
buy a truck with which to tow they can not buy a Ford equipped to tow pack
that does not have a V8.  You are corect the six speed, is a late option,
not currantaly available

mike

Ford dealer Guide    Maximum Loaded Trailer Weight (Lbs.) - Automatic
Transmission

Engine                                    Axle Ratio    GCWR (Lbs.)  126 -
inch wheel base  144.5 - inch wheel base
4.2L SEFI V6                            3.55  10000  5200      5100
(trailer tow package requires 4.6L V8)
4.6L Triton® SEFI V8               3.55  11500  6600  -  6200
5.4L Triton® 3-valve SEFI V8   3.55  13000  8000  -  7700

(All Ford trucks since the late eignties have required an automatic tranny
if the TT option was added).

Trailer tow package

Includes Class IV trailer hitch receiver, 7-pin wiring harness, upgraded
radiator and upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler (requires 4.6L or
5.4L Triton® V8); aux. trans. oil cooler only with 4.2L V6 A/T

"

mike

On Mar 16, 8:06 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> No so, all F150s with the trailer tow package have the 4.6 V8 standard.
>
> mike

But not all F150s have the Trailer Tow Package. And no F150 come with
a 4.5 V8.

You said "The F150 has a six speed and a V8 is standard as well." This
is an incorrect statement since neither a V-8 or a six speed
transmission is standard (and the six speed transmission isn't even an
option). And your revised statement is also incorrect. Go to
www.fordvehicles.com
and build an F150. Selecting the Trailer Tow Package does not reuire
the V-8 or an automatic transmission. And finally, Ford doesn't offer
a 6 speed transmission in the 2007 F150 (they do in the 2007
Expedition).

The following information was clipped directly from the 2007 Ford F150
Ordering Guide:

------

TRAILER TOW PACKAGE (535)
Usage: Required for towing over 5,000 lbs.
Availability:
· All F-150 units
Includes:
· Class IV trailer hitch receiver
· 7-pin wiring harness
· Upgraded radiator & upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler [req.
4.6L V8
(99W), 5.4L 3V V8 (995) or 5.4L 3V V8 FFV(99V) engine; auxiliary
transmission oil cooler only w/4.2L V6 A/T (992/44Q)]
Optional Equipment:
· Heavy duty 72-amp battery (59H) [incl. when ordered w/both Satellite
Radio
(91S) & Rear Seat Entertainment System (915)]

------

Notice that the Trailer Tow Package is availale with all F150 Units.
Also notice that it includes an "auxiliary transmission oil cooler
only w/4.2L V6 A/T" Please admit that the trailer tow package is
available with the 4.2L V-6.

As for the Powertrain Options:

-----

POWERTRAIN
4.2L EFI V6/5-Spd. Manual O/D
4.2L EFI v6/4-Spd. Auto O/D
4.6L EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
5.4L 3V EFI V8/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D
5.4L 3V EFI V8 FFV/Electronic 4-Spd. Auto O/D

-----

Ed

> "Ed White" <ce.whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
C. E. White - 20 Mar 2007 04:13 GMT
> Aparently have not been following the thread.  The dicsssion was about
> Tundra phony TV ads and their 10,000 towing ability. .  If one is looking
> to buy a truck with which to tow they can not buy a Ford equipped to tow
> pack that does not have a V8.  You are corect the six speed, is a late
> option, not currantaly available

I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive. That is not an
issue. In my post I was trying to correct all the errors you made regarding
Ford trucks. Apparently you did not bother to read my post and you reposted
more incorrect information regarding Ford trucks with the V-6.

I'll try to set you straight about the Ford one more time -

GO READ THE 2007 F150 ORDERING GUIDE - it definitely allows the Towing
Package with the V-6 and a manual transmission. And if you use the Ford
Website to build your F150, it will let you build one that way. Dealers
don't order many of them that way, but they do occasionally. I had no
trouble at all finding a manual transmission V-6 with the towing package in
a dealers stock (VIN 1FTRF12237NA36871 at   Beach Ford Inc., 2717 Virginia
Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA). I had no problem finding a V-6
Automatic with the towing package either. How many VINs do you want me to
post to prove your are wrong?  For a normal person finding one should be
enough to prove that you can order a V-6 Manual Transmission F150 with the
towing package, but you don't seem to be able to admit it when you are
wrong.

I also like the way you tried to cover your mistake in claiming the 2007
F150s got the six speed automatic. I assume available in the 2008 model
counts as "late availability" in your mind.  Wouldn't it have been easier to
admit you were wrong about that as well?

And is the 4.5 V-8 a late availability option also?

Ed

> mike
>
[quoted text clipped - 114 lines]
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
SnoMan - 20 Mar 2007 12:53 GMT
>I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive

No where near as despective as some of detriots tow ratings. I am not
pro toyota here but Detriot uses no science with its ratings and Ford
inflated their max 1/2 ton ratings because of Yota but the facts are
it does not have near the power than the yota does. If you do the math
and factor is axle ratio, rated torque and RPM, and transmision
ratios, the Yota beats them all is actal drawbar or pulling power. It
takes power to move the load, not a inflated rating. Be glad there is
a Toyota because Detriot will be forced to improve their trucks
against it and consumers will get a better product in the end.  Toyota
has their act together with the new Tundra with a 5.7 and a 6 speed
and they even spaced the tranny ratios properly to best apply power to
load (you can hit torque peak in the first three gears by 58 MPH in it
at 24, 41 and 58 MPH respecably vs  32 ,54 and 85 MPH for Ford, 39, 65
and 96 MPH for GM 6.0 Vortec max and 33, 60 and 99 MPH for Dodge Hemi.
Not only does the Toyota have more usable and effective gearing to get
load moving, it also has more torque as well to apply to those gears
so it is simple physics here. The Yota has the greatest mechanical
advantage over the load via gearing and availble power so it will pull
a load better than any of them. Kinda a like comparing a small guy
with a pry bar against a big guy with a bigger pry bar try to move
something. The Yota has the bigger guy (more torque) and the longer
bar (better effective gearing) so the end result is quite predicable
before you even hitch it up to a load. The scary part is that the Yota
actaully has more true towing/pulling  power to move a load than all
new gas powered  3/4 and 1 ton trucks if you do the math since GM no
longer has the 8.1 and the Hemi is no tow king. A Ford V10 would be
the only one to likley meet of exceed it. (we are talking actual
towing  power that can be aplied to load not weather it is a 1/2 ton
or 3/4 ton chassis)  Given the math behind the new Tndra, if they go
into the 3/4 and 1 ton market Detriot better get their act together
because if Yota can make a 1/2 ton that can pull that hard just think
of what they could do with a 3/4 ton or bigger.  
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
C. E. White - 20 Mar 2007 13:48 GMT
>>I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

It is not the going that bothers me, it is the stopping....

If I wanted to tow a heavy load, I would go for an F250/F350. They
also have a six speed transmission. Ford/GM/Dodge all have 3/4 and 1
ton trucks for people that actually need to tow 10,000 lbs. Toyota is
not trying to create that distinction i.e., they don't have a separate
Tundra HD model to compete with the F350/350 or Silverado HD. If you
want to compare the Tundra to other trucks capable of towing heavy
loads, then I contend you must compare it to the heavy duty pick-ups
from Ford, GM, and Dodge. And if you want to limit your discussion to
big "gas" engines, then here are the engine comparisons:

Tundra - 5.7L V-8 - 381 hp @ 5600 rpm   401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm
F250 - 6.8L V-10 - 362 hp @ 4750 rpm  457 lb. -ft @ 3250 rpm
Silverado HD2500 6.0L V-8 - 367 hp @ 5500 rpm  375 lb. - ft @ 4300 rpm
Dodge 2500 - 345 hp @ 5400 rpm   375 lb. - ft @ 4200 rpm

For towing I would contend that torque is more important that
horsepower -especially horsepower at 5600 rpm. Which engine would you
rather have to tow a heavy load? The one with 401 lb.-ft of torque at
3600 rpm, or the one with 457 lb.- ft of torque at 3250 rpm? F250s
also have a six speed automatic transmission and offer a variety of
rear gear ratios? So if you wanted to tow a heavy load, which truck
would be the better choice?

As an aside - I run a small farm and raise cattle (I sell around 20
claves a year to the feeder calf market). I can't justify owning a HD
truck and cattle trailer for my 1 or 2 trips to the sale a year, so I
hire one of my neighbors to do it for me. He has a fifth wheel cattle
trailer that can haul 20 to 25 calves at a time (figure around 9,000
lbs of cattle + the trailer). Until this year he has always used an
F250 with a diesel to pull the trailer. When he moved some cattle for
me earlier this year, he had a new F350. I assumed it was a diesel. I
was curious how the "new" powerstroke diesel performed compared to the
older versions. I started asking him about the truck and he was very
positive. Said it pulled really well and that he really liked the
engine except the fuel economy was not as good. This confused me
because I though the new diesels were supposed to be better. When I
mentioned this, he just laughed. He explained he didn't get a diesel.
His new truck had a 5.4L V-8. He said it had plenty of power and
towing the trailer was not a problem at all. It was his opinion than
even the V-10 was overkill and the expensive diesel option was
completely unnecessary.

Ed
C. E. White - 20 Mar 2007 14:10 GMT
One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six
speed automatic even before the $3000 rebate on the F250 is figured
in.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 20 Mar 2007 14:49 GMT
> One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
> automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six speed
> automatic even before the $3000 rebate on the F250 is figured in.
>
> Ed

Maxwell House is cheaper than edible coffee.
Wickeddoll® - 20 Mar 2007 14:58 GMT
"JoeSpareBedroom" ...
> "C. E. White"...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Maxwell House is cheaper than edible coffee.

LOL.

Now, come on - Ford trucks are pretty good.  I'd consider one if I were in
the market for a truck.

Natalie
JoeSpareBedroom - 20 Mar 2007 15:10 GMT
> "JoeSpareBedroom" ...
>> "C. E. White"...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Natalie

I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that were
intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I won't do
it a second time unless they give me the product for free, and pay me a
hefty aggravation bonus any time it had what I considered to be a stupid
problem. $1000.00 per incident would be about right.
C. E. White - 20 Mar 2007 16:27 GMT
> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that
> were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with
> Ford. I won't do it a second time unless they give me the product
> for free, and pay me a hefty aggravation bonus any time it had what
> I considered to be a stupid problem. $1000.00 per incident would be
> about right.

So Toyota has never sold a defective product? How about the thousands
of prior model Tundras with bad ball joints? Or with piston slap prone
engines?

Just a quick Google of "Toyota Tundra recall" got over 600,000 hits.
Here are a few references from just the first page of hits:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_tundra_engine.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Toyota-Tundra-Recall:-New-Trucks-Brakes-Break&id=47569
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/08/toyota-facing-anothertundra-recall/
http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tundra.htm
http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-recalls/09-int/2000/toyota/tundra/index.html
http://www.autobuyguide.com/2005/12-aut/toyota/tundra/recalls/index.html

I am not saying that this proves the Tundra is a "bad" truck. But I
don't think it is fair for people to claim Tundras have
extraordinarily high quality either. And before you ask, a Google
search for "Ford F250 Recall" got around 123,00 hits. It is hard to do
a valid comparison of the number of recalls for the two trucks because
NHTSA often mixes all Ford SD recalls together, but then reports some
only by a particular model, but I'll try (only safety recalls
counted). Information is from NHTSA:

Toyota Tundra Recalls -

1999 Tundra - 1 Recall
                    - 70717 Vehicles, Trailer Hitches (includes
multiple years)
2000 Tundra - 4 Recalls
                    - 70717 Vehicles, Trailer Hitches (includes
multiple years)
                    - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 16472 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting
2001 Tundra - 2 Recalls
                    - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
2002 Tundra - 3 Recalls
                    - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years)
2003 Tundra - 4 Recalls
                    - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years)
                    - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch
(includes multiple years)
2004 Tundra - 7 Recalls
                    - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years)
                    - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch
(includes multiple years)
                    - 5726 Vehicle,  Exhaust System (includes
multiple years, this is the problem where the exhaust melts the brake
line)
                    - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint
recall)
2005 Tundra - 5 Recalls
                    - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch
(includes multiple years)
                    - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint
recall)
                    - 5726 Vehicles, Exhaust System (includes
multiple years, this is the problem where the exhaust melts the brake
line)
                    - 2527 Vehicles, Air Bags
2006 Tundra - 2 Recalls
                    - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                    - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes
multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint
recall)

Ford F250 Recalls -

1999 F250 - 5 Recalls (including recall that affect all SDs)
                  - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 58640 Vehicles, Fuel Filter (aftermarket filter,
not Ford)
                  - 10537 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes
F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years)
                  - 3500 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control (cable) -
includes F350/F450/etc
                  - 19187 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes
F350/F450/etc
2000 F250 - 4 Recall (including recalls that affect all SDs)
                  - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 8100 Vehicles, Brake Pedal - includes
F350/F450/etc
                  - 12850 Vehicles, Brake Light Switch - includes
F350/F450/etc
                  - 10537 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes
F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years)
2001 F250 - 2 Recalls (including recalls that affect all SDs)
                  - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 185 Vehicles, Fuel Filler Pipe - includes
F350/F450/etc
2002 F250 - 3 Recalls
                  - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 14616 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 1200000 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control -
includes F150/Expedition/F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years)
2003 F250 - 5 Recalls
                  - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 14616 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 83687 Vehicles, Battery
                  - 155584 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes
F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years)
2004 F250 - 2 Recalls
                  - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting  (includes
multiple years / accessory lighting)
                  - 180104 Vehicles, Wiring (includes multiple years)
2005 F250 - 2 Recalls
                  -  450 Vehicles, Air Brakes (this is not actually
an F250 recall since they don't have air brakes)
                  - 180104 Vehicles, Wiring (includes multiple years)
                  - 78675 Vehicles, Fuel Lines
2006 F250 - 2 Recalls
                  -  450 Vehicles, Air Brakes (this is not actually
an F250 recall since they don't have air brakes)
                  - 34296 Vehicles, Tires (not really a Ford Recall -
Continental recalled the tires)

I think if you look over the list, I do not think you can claim that
Toyota Tundras are special when it comes to defects compared to an
F250. I was amused by how many recalls aren't really Toyota's or
Ford's "fault." What is it with all the exterior lighting recalls? Are
dealers festooning these trucks with illegal lights?

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 20 Mar 2007 16:39 GMT
>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that were
>> intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I won't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> prior model Tundras with bad ball joints? Or with piston slap prone
> engines?

Every product has a defect now and then. However, you apparently missed the
word "INTENTIONAL". Tell me you saw it, and what you thought about the
presence of the word in my comment.
samstone@aol.com - 20 Mar 2007 17:43 GMT
>Every product has a defect now and then. However, you apparently missed the
>word "INTENTIONAL". Tell me you saw it, and what you thought about the
>presence of the word in my comment.

VW had a slick one,  back before digital sp/odometers the same little plastic
gear failed early  for over 20 years. ;-)
DH - 20 Mar 2007 19:15 GMT
>>Every product has a defect now and then. However, you apparently missed
>>the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> plastic
> gear failed early  for over 20 years. ;-)

VW?  Burned and learned. Just like with Ford.

But at least the VW was fun to drive.  It really did have fahrvergneugen.
And it was a van.

JSB, which defect was that?

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 13:55 GMT
>>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products
>>> that were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> missed the word "INTENTIONAL". Tell me you saw it, and what you
> thought about the presence of the word in my comment.

Well you will have to clarify what you consider an "intentional"
defect. I am sure no manufacturer includes "intentional defect." The
statement itself is an oxymoron.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 14:12 GMT
>>>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that
>>>> were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Ed

I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.

I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC machining
equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company sells to the
Detroit-3, Toyota, and others. I once asked him why not-very-old Chrysler
mini-vans stink like a 30 year old car. His response: Chrysler makes a
conscious choice to program larger tolerances for manufacturing the engines
and crucial parts. He said it's quite frustrating to be told to program CNC
equipment to create far less quality than it's capable of. When he's working
at a Toyota plant, things are different. He's got a handful of Japanese
engineers following him around, checking on his work, and making sure the
equipment is tweaked to its maximum capabilities. His Chrysler experience is
similar to the routine at Ford & GM.

His explanation was a response to a comment of mine, as a Chrysler mini-van
pulled into the parking lot of a lodge where we were both staying with our
families: "I wonder how someone goes about ruining an engine so quickly.
That van's gotta be what....3 years old?"

So, that's intentional. Engineers at the D-3 make a ***CONSCIOUS CHOICE***
to build a sloppy product. They tell my friend "Program the thing per our
instructions". They are hesitant to explain why.
Whitelightning - 22 Mar 2007 14:24 GMT
> His explanation was a response to a comment of mine, as a Chrysler
> mini-van pulled into the parking lot of a lodge where we were both staying
> with our families: "I wonder how someone goes about ruining an engine so
> quickly. That van's gotta be what....3 years old?"

Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the engine in the mini van is
a peiece of sh.t Mitsubishi V-6, Nah couldn't be that.

Whitelightning
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 14:32 GMT
>> His explanation was a response to a comment of mine, as a Chrysler
>> mini-van pulled into the parking lot of a lodge where we were both
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Whitelightning

Could be. Still intentional. Anything that's easy to prevent, but isn't, is
intentional.
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 15:44 GMT
> I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> CHOICE*** to build a sloppy product. They tell my friend "Program
> the thing per our instructions". They are hesitant to explain why.

Different engineers have different specs for parts. The fact that your
friend is asked to program it differently for different companies
proves nothing. The "worst" engine in a Chrysler minivan is the
Japanese built 3.0L Mitsubishi V-6. I suppose the Japanese screw that
up for Chrysler on purpose.

Engineers design parts to a spec for a reason. Making parts meet an
unnecessarily tight spec costs money. Without more information about
what the tolerances were and why your story is just more BS.

This story is the sort of crap that drives me crazy. You are claiming
a normal manufacturing process is an intentional defect. It isn't.
Every decision to built parts to a particular tolerance is an
intentional decision. Engineer makes trade-offs everyday. I can't
imagine they want to explain their decisions to a guy that is supposed
to program a machine for them.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 15:49 GMT
>> I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Ed

Whatever you say, shmexpert.
trainfan1 - 22 Mar 2007 23:38 GMT
>>>I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Whatever you say, shmexpert.

Good comeback.

It's the bean counters, not the engineers.  It's a flaw, maybe, but not
intentional.

Rob
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 23:37 GMT
>>>>I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> Rob

No. It's intentional, Rob. When a company's got at least 30 years' of data
to learn from, and they ignore it, it's intentional.
C. E. White - 23 Mar 2007 14:25 GMT
> No. It's intentional, Rob. When a company's got at least 30 years'
> of data to learn from, and they ignore it, it's intentional.

You don't get it. Some tolerances are important, some aren't.
Requiring excessively tight tolerances is bad engineering. If the
machine could hold a +/- 0.001" tolerance as cheaply as it could hold
a +/-0.005" then it would be set to the tighter tolerance. If can't do
it as cheaply, and a 0.005" tolerance is acceptable for the
application, then it will be set for a 0.005" tolerance. Chrysler is
not "deliberately" specifying wide tolerance to make crappy cars. They
may be specifying looser tolerances to reduce manufacturing costs, but
without actual facts, it is hard to know what is going on and I
seriously doubt looser tolerances is why the particular Chrysler
vehicle in your story "stunk." It is very easy to specify tight
tolerances and design crap, and have loose tolerances and have a good
machine.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 14:30 GMT
>> No. It's intentional, Rob. When a company's got at least 30 years' of
>> data to learn from, and they ignore it, it's intentional.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Ed

I wonder why their competition is happy with the "excessively tight"
tolerances for the exact same engine parts. Any thoughts on that? It doesn't
seem to have hurt their business.
C. E. White - 23 Mar 2007 15:12 GMT
> I wonder why their competition is happy with the "excessively tight"
> tolerances for the exact same engine parts. Any thoughts on that? It
> doesn't seem to have hurt their business.

You have passed into the realm of making things up. They aren't the
exact same engine parts. You have no idea of the design tolerances.
For all you know, there were secondary operations involved after your
friends' CNC machine did it part of the process. You have no facts,
just a half assed tail from a guy who was pissed that some engineer
told how him to do his job. If the Japanese are so great at getting
"tight tolerances" right, why do so many Tundra V-8 exhibit piston
slap?  Are "excessively tight" tolerance the reason a Toyota starter
for my old Cressida cost $500 when a similar starter for a US car got
less than $100? Are those "excessively tight" tolerances the reasons
the jump seats on my Frontier keep falling down?  Or maybe the
"excessively tight" tolerances is why so many Toyotas had problems
with rotten egg smells from the exhaust.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 15:19 GMT
>> I wonder why their competition is happy with the "excessively tight"
>> tolerances for the exact same engine parts. Any thoughts on that? It
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Ed

I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at that
factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.

It may help for you to eliminate faith from your thinking on these issues.
C. E. White - 23 Mar 2007 15:43 GMT
> I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at that
> factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.

I said you were making things up ecasue you said " the exact same
engine parts." They are not the exact same engine parts.

Chrysler doesn't make pistons at all. They buy them, jsut like Ford,
GM, and Toyota (althoguh Toyota probably owns 51% of the company
making their pistons).

Ed

> It may help for you to eliminate faith from your thinking on these
> issues.
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 15:53 GMT
>> I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at that
>> factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> It may help for you to eliminate faith from your thinking on these
>> issues.

OK. Let's assume the whole machining question is moot for the moment, and
focus on the symptoms I've mentioned in other messages:

Please explain:

1982 Tercel: Uses 1/2 quart of oil in 3 years.
1988 Corolla wagon (4 cyl): Uses a quart in 5-6 years.
1996 Camry wagon (6 cyl): Uses 1/2 quart in 10 years.
2002 Tacoma (6 cyl): Uses *ZERO* oil in 4.5 years. I've still got the
unopened container of oil I bought when the truck was new.

Contrast:
1992 Taurus (6 cyl): Used a quart every 2-3 months, from the time the car
was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it clear what was
happening.
C. E. White - 23 Mar 2007 16:05 GMT
>>> I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at
>>> that factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> the car was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it
> clear what was happening.

I haven't had a car that needed oil added between changes in 35 years
that wasn't made in England. How many miles did you drive in 2-3
months? I drive somewhere around 2000 miles a months, so a quart of
oil every 2 to 3 months would be trivial.

You need to understand something important  -all piston engines
consume oil - even precision built, jewel like, made by god, Toyota
engines. In fact, I'll wager you that your damn near perfect Toyota
engine is probably burning more than a quart of oil between changes,
BUT, you say, I never have to add any. So what. All engine also suffer
from blow-by to some extent, The stuff that escapes pass the piston
rings ends up in the oil. If you have more stuff blowing by the rings
that oil escaping past the rings, seals, PCV, etc., you can actually
have the oil level increase. We had an old farm tractor that did
exactly that. The compression rings were weak, so a lot of stuff blew
by them. So, it is entirely possible, that the Taurus you hate
actually used less oil than the Toyota you love, but also had better
seals so less stuff escaped into the oil  (but certainly I don't know
this). Without careful oil analysis you can't know. I do that I never
had to add oil to my old Cressida, but it constantly dripped oil on to
the garage floor. It was clearly making up the lost oil somehow.

One more thing - if your catalytic converter is working, you aren't
going to be able to tell your car is burning minor amounts of oil
(minor = 1 quart per 1000 miles) by looking at the tail pipe.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 16:20 GMT
>>>> I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at that
>>>> factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> Ed

Great.

Explain the Taurus' fusible link, protected by something akin to $2.00
inline fuse cover like you'd buy at Radio Shack. Mounted low in the engine
compartment to be sure it would catch as much road salt and moisture as
possible.

Explain the other Ford's defective stick shift design, which required
dismantling the entire interior of the car (seat, carpets, console) to
replace a cheap plastic ring.

All intentional.

The bottom line here is that like many Americans, you are willing to accept
low quality for certain products, but not for others. You're probably know
that a cheap bookcase from Staples is not as well made as one from Ethan
Allen. But, for many people, cars are part of some sort of bizarre "other
way of thinking". You make special exceptions for cars that you'd never make
for any other product. You'll rationalize bad quality all day long.

It's your right to do so.
RCE - 23 Mar 2007 16:24 GMT
> You need to understand something important  -all piston engines consume
> oil - even precision built, jewel like, made by god, Toyota engines.

That's what the crosshatched honing of the cylinder walls are for.  At a
micro level, they are grand canyons that hold oil. The piston rings ride on
the minute layer of oil contained in the lines.

So, by default, all engines use and "burn" some oil.

But, JoeSpareBedroom won't believe this, I am sure.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 16:25 GMT
>> You need to understand something important  -all piston engines consume
>> oil - even precision built, jewel like, made by god, Toyota engines.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> RCE

I believe it. But, I don't understand why some cars use quite a bit more
than others, and begin to stink like old junkers when they're still
relatively new.
Mac Cool - 25 Mar 2007 09:57 GMT
JoeSpareBedroom:

> 1992 Taurus (6 cyl): Used a quart every 2-3 months, from the time the
> car was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it clear
> what was happening.

I had a 93 Taurus (6 cyl), ran it up to 190k, never used a drop of oil and
the only mechanical problem was a water pump went out. Sold it to a Ford
mechanic who is probably still driving it.

Don't accept hearsay from a disgruntled employee as god given proof of
some conspiracy.

Signature

Mac Cool

JoeSpareBedroom - 25 Mar 2007 12:53 GMT
> JoeSpareBedroom:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Don't accept hearsay from a disgruntled employee as god given proof of
> some conspiracy.

Not sure where you got "employee" from. You're not sure, either.
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 17:24 GMT
> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company
> sells to the Detroit-3, Toyota, and others. I once asked him why
> not-very-old Chrysler mini-vans stink like a 30 year old car. His
> response: Chrysler makes a conscious choice to program larger tolerances
> for manufacturing the engines and crucial parts.

Hey, Doug!

Your CNC programming acquaintance is full of crap.

RCE   (Eisboch)
Dante - 22 Mar 2007 17:33 GMT
>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> RCE   (Eisboch)

Care to enlighten us on the reason for your outburst?

Dante
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 17:37 GMT
>>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dante

He cannot do that.
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 18:11 GMT
>>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dante

Sorry it came across as an "outburst".  Didn't intend it to be.
"JoeSpareBedroom" and I have debated other subjects before and although we
often disagree,  I enjoy reading his thoughts and opinions.

As to my reasoning ... there is no significant benefit  ... cost-wise ... to
specifying a lesser tolerance when machining with automated, CNC equipment.
The equipment measures and locates to 3 or 4 decimal places as easily and
quickly as 1 or 2.  So that's not a factor.
To suggest that Chrysler's vendors or component manufacturers purposely
manufacture to specifications that are different than the engineering specs
opens them up to warranty, recall and additional costs.  (See Ford vs.
Navistar).  Nope.  Doesn't make any sense.

So does Chrysler purposely build (or have built by their vendors)  engines
that are substandard to the design?  Doubtful.  Why?

Truth is ... most small high performance engines are designed with fairly
wide tolerances because they are more reliable, long term.  Examples:  BMW,
Porsche.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 18:22 GMT
>>>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> RCE

Explain, please:

1982 Tercel: Uses 1/2 quart of oil in 3 years.
1989 (?) Corolla wagon (4 cyl): Uses a quart in 5-6 years.
1996 Camry wagon (6 cyl): Uses 1/2 quart in 10 years.
2002 Tacoma (6 cyl): Uses *ZERO* oil in 4.5 years.

Contrast:
1991 Taurus (6 cyl, smaller motor than Tacoma): Uses a quart every 2-3
months. The exhaust makes it clear what's happening.

Let's talk about intentional defects a bit more. Please provide your best
cockamamie excuse for these situations:

Example - my sister's 1983 Buick, perfectly maintained, driven normally,
transmission has meltdown at 60,000 miles.

Example - my 1992 Taurus. Fusible link located at bottom of engine
compartment, completely unprotected from the elements. Link and its
connectors corroded and turned to crumbs, preventing car from starting.
Since it's common knowledge that electrical connections need to be
thoroughly protected in engine compartments, we can safely conclude that the
car's designer intended for this problem to occur, perhaps as a prank.

Example - Chrysler mini-vans. I can identify them blindfolded, just by the
smell of their exhausts. One year old and they stink like an ancient Blazer.
Why?
Is it the Japanese engines? Chrysler can order whatever they want from their
subcontractors, or choose better subcontractors.

Example - another Ford I owned, mid 1970s. Stick shift held onto tranny by a
nylon (plastic) threaded ring. Exhaust located 4 inches from that spot.
Nylon ring softens from heat, threads deteriorate, so one day, I downshift
from 3rd to 2nd and end up holding a shifter that's attached to nothing,
other than being held to the console by the boot. Wait. It gets better: The
dealer claims they've never heard of this before. That didn't work, for
reasons not important here. They fixed it for free. Six months later, same
thing. I decide to fix it myself, since it was summertime and I was curious.
Parts guy says "Oh yeah...we always keep that ring in stock. Lots of
problems." Why didn't the shop want to fix it for free without being
coerced? Because in order to fix it, you had to remove the front seats,
remove all the carpet trim, lift the carpet, so you could finally get to the
screws that held the console in place. Under the console were hidden the
screws that held the shifter boot to the transmission hump. Actual time to
replace the melted ring: two minutes.
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 19:28 GMT
>>>>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>>>
>>>> RCE   (Eisboch)

> Explain, please:
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> screws that held the shifter boot to the transmission hump. Actual time to
> replace the melted ring: two minutes.

No way am I getting sucked into one of your 100 part essay quizzes.

I thought I was responding to your CNC programming buddy's claim that
Chrysler
demands that CNC equipment be programmed to machine to looser tolerances in
the manufacture of their engines.

I still say that is BS.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 19:31 GMT
>>>>>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>>>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
>
> RCE

You *were* responding to the CNC question, but you said this:

"To suggest that Chrysler's vendors or component manufacturers purposely
manufacture to specifications that are different than the engineering specs
opens them up to warranty, recall and additional costs."

Since it made no sense relative to what I pointed out about CNC equipment
installed at Chrysler facilities, I ignored it. I'm talking about choices
made by Chrysler, not by outsourcing vendors. It was explained that Chrysler
chooses looser tolerances than a real car company.
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 19:36 GMT
> You *were* responding to the CNC question, but you said this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> made by Chrysler, not by outsourcing vendors. It was explained that
> Chrysler chooses looser tolerances than a real car company.

Ok.  Chrysler isn't a "real" car company.  Learn something new everyday.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 19:41 GMT
>> You *were* responding to the CNC question, but you said this:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> RCE

Learning is good. Glad I could help.

Clue: When it's easy to do great work and you make a conscious choice not
to, especially for lame reasons, you've lost touch with reality, and cease
to become real. This is what I've described for you via my friend's
experience with Chrysler.

You will now say that looser tolerances don't matter, but actual symptoms
say the opposite. You know that.

You're retired, aren't you?
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 20:31 GMT
> Learning is good. Glad I could help.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> You're retired, aren't you?

Pretty much, although technically I am still "employed".  Which brings up a
chuckle I had when you said this:

>> Let's talk about intentional defects a bit more. Please provide your best
>> cockamamie excuse for these situations:

I chuckled because I was very fortunate to be able to retire over 5 years
ago at the ripe old age of 52.  I was reasonably successful from a financial
point of view, have a decent reputation in the industry I was in and never
got sued for anything.  I attribute this modest success to some of the
cockamamie ideas and standards that I tenaciously stuck to for many years.

BTW .... the BMW E60 M5 engine (V10 - 500 hp)  is arguably one of the most
advanced engine designs in production from a technological point of view.
It is "sloppy" in it's tolerances and owners (me being one) typically
experience a liter of oil use every 1000 - 1500 miles.  How's that for
quality?

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 20:35 GMT
>> Learning is good. Glad I could help.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> RCE

Are you claiming that some manufacturers don't decide that "not so good" is
"good enough" for their target market and price range?
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 21:36 GMT
> Are you claiming that some manufacturers don't decide that "not so good"
> is "good enough" for their target market and price range?

I need to study that sentence sometime to figure out what it means.

If anything.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 21:42 GMT
>> Are you claiming that some manufacturers don't decide that "not so good"
>> is "good enough" for their target market and price range?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> RCE

It's perfectly clear. Ask your toaster to help you.
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 22:08 GMT
> It's perfectly clear. Ask your toaster to help you.

No help.  My toaster just stares back at me.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 22:11 GMT
>> It's perfectly clear. Ask your toaster to help you.
>
> No help.  My toaster just stares back at me.
>
> RCE

OK. You pick words more amenable to your state of mind:

Some manufacturers' cars suck. Do you think they got this way by mistake?
Or, do the manufacturers know they're producing crap?
RCE - 22 Mar 2007 22:48 GMT
> OK. You pick words more amenable to your state of mind:
>
> Some manufacturers' cars suck. Do you think they got this way by mistake?
> Or, do the manufacturers know they're producing crap?

I don't know.

Car manufacturers are tasked with meeting a wide range of technical,
marketing, economic and regulatory criteria.  They have to design and build
a desirable car that they can build at a profit and meet ever increasing
safety and environmental regulations.

For example:

One way to get better gas mileage is to improve engine efficiency.  Hard to
do in a cost-effective manner so it is accomplished every 3 or 4 years.
Another way is to reduce weight of the car.  If a component usually made of
metal that weighs 2 lbs and has a mean time between failure of 100,000 hours
can be replaced with one made of nylon that weighs 1/2 pound and has a MTBF
of 50,000 hours ... it will probably be made of nylon since the Marketing
Department research indicates that the average person owns a car for about
5-6 years.

Profit is based on the total cost of doing business.  Some manufacturers
have significant advantages over others in this area.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 23:04 GMT
>> OK. You pick words more amenable to your state of mind:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> RCE

You could've stopped at "I don't know", because logically, it doesn't
matter. If they know they're producing crap, they're disgusting for selling
it to anyone. If they do NOT know they're producing crap, then they're
incompetent, and this sentence can be completed the same as the previous
one.

There is only one way to do your work. Everything else is offensive.
trainfan1 - 22 Mar 2007 23:43 GMT
>>>>>I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>>>machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
> screws that held the shifter boot to the transmission hump. Actual time to
> replace the melted ring: two minutes.

Pinto/Mustang II anecdotes.

All anecdotal.

Rob
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 23:48 GMT
>>>>>>I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>>>>machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
>
> Rob

And 100% accurate. Go toy with one of the 3 musketeers. They'll fall for it.
Mark - 22 Mar 2007 20:19 GMT
Try not to confuse Joe with logic and valid business reasons for
companies designing and building products the way they do.  His
fragile mind can't take it, he's likely to spontaneously combust if he
feels like he's being picked on.  Joe is the master of applying BS
anecdotal evidence, sketchy rumors and conspiracy theories that he
gathers in his *very* limited sphere of influence to the rest of the
universe.

> >>> I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
> >>> machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 20:22 GMT
All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that is
not anecdotal.

> Try not to confuse Joe with logic and valid business reasons for
> companies designing and building products the way they do.  His
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Matt Macchiarolo - 23 Mar 2007 05:15 GMT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that is
> not anecdotal.
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
Joe - 23 Mar 2007 05:19 GMT
I thought old minivans stunk because of all the rotten McDonalds food in the
corners and the floor.  Didn't you guys know that?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
RCE - 23 Mar 2007 11:26 GMT
>I thought old minivans stunk because of all the rotten McDonalds food in
>the corners and the floor.  Didn't you guys know that?

Could be.

Although not for me, they certainly are popular with the mothers of young
kids.
My daughter has a Grand Caravan ... an '05, I think.  She has two boys aged
6 and 8 plus two fully grown bloodhound dogs.  She wouldn't part with her
"Eggmobile" for anything and after inspecting it one day I can understand
why from her point of view.  The rear seats fold flat, there are storage
compartments everywhere it seems and she hauls the kids, groceries, dogs,
furniture, ... whatever everyday.

She and her husband have taken 3000 mile vacation trips in it several times,
packed to the gills with their "stuff".  So far, it has performed
flawlessly, gets decent gas mileage and has about 80k miles on it.

Good think Chrysler insisted on "loose" tolerances.  <g>

RCE
Wickeddoll® - 23 Mar 2007 14:41 GMT
>I thought old minivans stunk because of all the rotten McDonalds food in
>the corners and the floor.  Didn't you guys know that?

*snip*

*backing away slowly*

Natalie
dh - 23 Mar 2007 12:59 GMT
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated by
looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey.  You can
tell which pages are Toyota and Honda just by the overall color pattern.
They are consistently above average.  Consistently.  Across nearly their
entire product lines.  Consistenly.

And my experience is that you only get that if you sweat the details - like
close tolerances all the time, but lots of other details, too.

>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that
>> is not anecdotal.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>>>
>>>> >> Your CNC programming acquaintance is full of crap.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

David M - 23 Mar 2007 13:15 GMT
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated by
> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey.  

Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain
gullible.

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 18 days 27 min

DH - 23 Mar 2007 15:17 GMT
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain
> gullible.

Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and
report on your findings?

CR stays in business because they make their readers happy.   They're not
going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars.

I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years ago.
As a result, I have been buying Toyotas.

I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years, with
10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO problems.
They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a good combination
of fuel economy and performance.

Maybe I'm gullible but I'm also happy to follow CRs advice.

What are the other options?  Listen to you?  Hah!

That's nothing.  We had individual Vaxes run for at least two years and Vax
clusters up for longer than that.  And we weren't a 24X7 shop, that's just
how Vaxes worked.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 16:55 GMT
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> What are the other options?  Listen to you?  Hah!

You could base your purchases on opinions from an illiterate retired used
car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis. :-)
Wickeddoll® - 23 Mar 2007 17:05 GMT
"JoeSpareBedroom" ...
> "DH" ...
>> "David M"
, dh rearranged some electrons to form:
>>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" ...
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis.
> :-)

Yeah, you could.  Then you'd deserve to buy a POS that costs more money in
the long run than that "overpriced" Toyota ever could.

:-P

Natalie
RCE - 23 Mar 2007 17:27 GMT
> You could base your purchases on opinions from an illiterate retired used
> car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis.
> :-)

If that was intended to be me ....  sorry.  You are waayyyyy  off.

RCE
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 17:33 GMT
>> You could base your purchases on opinions from an illiterate retired used
>> car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> RCE

No, not you.
Wickeddoll® - 23 Mar 2007 17:49 GMT
"JoeSpareBedroom" ...
> "RCE" ...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> No, not you.

Nope - I got who he meant right away.  I only see his posts when people make
the mistake of replying to him.  Usually it's good for a laugh. A rueful
laugh, but...

Natalie
Hairy - 25 Mar 2007 03:20 GMT
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis.
> :-)

Oh, come on. Don't be so hard on yourself. We know you try......
Matt Macchiarolo - 24 Mar 2007 14:19 GMT
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years ago.
> As a result, I have been buying Toyotas.

When it comes to cars' reliability, CR uses wide-scale "anecdotal" evidence.
Their reliability surveys make no mention of the sample size for each
vehicle or the percentage rate of problems reported in the survey, not to
mention the effect of owner's bias in the surveys.  If I want to buy a
vacuum cleaner or a dishwasher, I'll read CU.  If I want to buy a car, I'll
buy what I like.

> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years,
> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO
> problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a good
> combination of fuel economy and performance.

We owned a Toyota Avalon that had transmission problems and tire problems
(OK, tire problems aren't necessarily the fault of the manufacturer, but
still...) and a brand-new Honda Odessey minivan that had such a bad engine
oil leak Honda had to buy it back under Michigan's Lemon Law.
dh - 24 Mar 2007 17:08 GMT
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> buy a vacuum cleaner or a dishwasher, I'll read CU.  If I want to buy a
> car, I'll buy what I like.

The careful application of wide-scale "anectdotal" evidence is what we call
"statistics."  I like Toyota's stats.

Reliability is just one aspect of your transportation choice.  There's
capacity, comfort, value and lots of other dimensions.  Buying a the car
that's top rated for reliability just because it's top rated for reliability
is pointless.

However, if you value reliability (and I do), then it's part of the
decision.  I might like the looks of A better than B but if they serve
equally well and B is ranked as more reliable, then I know I'm likely to be
unhappy with A in the long run and I'll buy B.

>> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years,
>> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> still...) and a brand-new Honda Odessey minivan that had such a bad engine
> oil leak Honda had to buy it back under Michigan's Lemon Law.

Well, I can certainly understand why you would not buy another Honda or
Toyota and I can't say I blame you.  However, it appears that more people
have been turned off by similar experiences with GM, Ford and Dodge than
Toyota and Honda, which would explain their better resale value and higher
reliability rankings.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

FDRanger92 - 25 Mar 2007 05:10 GMT
Yeah I looked at CR when I bought my 92 Ranger 171K miles ago. Think they
described my engine as a "primitive but reliable design". The truck didn't
really get great marks as I recall particularly compared to the Toy, but
it's held up better than most of the Toys purchased around the same time by
people I've known. Can't really take CR too seriously since.

Maybe some of you "toyota can do no wrong" people can 'splain to me why it
was ok for toyota to intentionally try to hide the engine sludge problems
they were having for so many years?

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Vax clusters up for longer than that.  And we weren't a 24X7 shop, that's
> just how Vaxes worked.
Wickeddoll® - 25 Mar 2007 05:33 GMT
"FDRanger92" ...
> Yeah I looked at CR when I bought my 92 Ranger 171K miles ago. Think they
> described my engine as a "primitive but reliable design". The truck didn't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> was ok for toyota to intentionally try to hide the engine sludge problems
> they were having for so many years?

*snip*

Oh, for the love of all that's holy, don't start that sludge sh.t again.

First of all, I've never seen anyone on the alt.Toyotas forum say Toyota are
never defective.  Sure they are.  The difference is in how the defect is
handled, and of course, the severity of said defect.  From what I've
gleaned, the sludge problem was augmented by poor maintenance, but even so,
that is apparently a true defect in some Toyotas of the past.  Haven't heard
of any new ones with that problem.

None of the Toyotas we've owned have ever had sludge, or dangerous (as in
exploding cars) defects, but they've certainly had minor problems.  The one
we bought in the 80s had shitty exhaust, until we had that replaced.  My
Echo had wimpy floor boards, that Toyota alerted me to, before I even
noticed.  Ditto some sort of brake problem (nothing serious)

Ford, GM, etc., have a tendency to blame the consumer when something goes
wrong, until they're backed into a corner.  This is one of the many reasons
people don't have the trust they once had.  I remember when domestic cars
were all the rage, but that time has passed.  I think we can get it back, if
they start treating their customers *and* their employees better.  Look at
how many cops went up in flames, driving the Crown Vics before anything was
done?  Shameful.

As for trucks, I personally would lean to a Ford.  You see Ford trucks on
the roads all the time, and from all eras.  They're quite tough, and
everyone I know who owns one loves it.  So if I wanted a truck, I'd check
out Ford first, then probably Dodge.  I don't feel the Japanese have a good
grip on large vehicles.  Yet.

Natalie
RCE - 25 Mar 2007 22:02 GMT
> Oh, for the love of all that's holy, don't start that sludge sh.t again.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> so, that is apparently a true defect in some Toyotas of the past.  Haven't
> heard of any new ones with that problem.

Nope.  They learned from Chrysler to loosen up some of the engine
tolerances.  <g>

RCE
Wickeddoll® - 25 Mar 2007 23:57 GMT
"RCE" <...

> "Wickeddoll®"...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> RCE

Ah.  Will you tell the sludge-ranters that?  They seem to think it's still
prevalent.

:-P

Natalie
Whitelightning - 27 Mar 2007 06:33 GMT
> Oh, for the love of all that's holy, don't start that sludge sh.t again.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> so, that is apparently a true defect in some Toyotas of the past.  Haven't
> heard of any new ones with that problem.

Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
service was performed by a Toyota dealership.

> None of the Toyotas we've owned have ever had sludge, or dangerous (as in
> exploding cars)

The orginal Toyota Van had engine fire issues, thou not as bad as Nissan's
Van which was  a roman candle. It also had  steering gear bix issues, and
problems with the lift gate staying closed in an accident..  And as far a
dangerous is concerned,
How about the Prius problem with a steering shaft failure as in it breaks,
and while on that note the 89-95 4 Runners and 93-98 T100s had issues with
steering relay rods breaking.  and then there are the 2005 Avalons that they
forgot to weld the yokes to the steering shafts.
Toyota truck issues,2001-2002 4 runner, 2001-2003 Tacoma, 2004-2007 Sequoia
and 2004-2006 Tundras experiance premature front lower ball joint failures
And toyota has had an ongoing issue with hub bearing failures.
The camry has had issues with the fuse boxs

defects, but they've certainly had minor problems.  The one
> we bought in the 80s had shitty exhaust, until we had that replaced.  My
> Echo had wimpy floor boards, that Toyota alerted me to, before I even
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> better.  Look at how many cops went up in flames, driving the Crown Vics
> before anything was done?  Shameful.

I must have a really good dealer.  2003 Cavilear, got hit right front
cornor.  4 months later engine light comes on, take back to dealer, 15
minutes later they are moving everything out of my car into a rental (I do
onsite POS equipment repairs these days for restaurants, the trunk is always
brimming so they moved a lot of stuff)  seems the tranny had a problem, they
rebuilt it under extended warranty.  My out of pocket cost for all of it,$0.
My esxtended family has been dealing with them 22 years because the service
has always been as such, even though the dearship has changed hands 7 years
ago.

Whitelightning
Scott in Florida - 27 Mar 2007 14:42 GMT
>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
>service was performed by a Toyota dealership.

That is simply not true.

No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a dealer
developed sludge....

Signature


Scott in  Florida

C. E. White - 27 Mar 2007 15:15 GMT
>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning
>>down
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> dealer
> developed sludge....

And you can prove this? And what was the correct service intervals?
7500 miles, 5000 mile, 3000 miles?

No matter how you spin this, certain Toyota engines sold in certain
years were more likely to development significant internal sludge than
engines from most other manufacturers. I am not going to claim that
all the complaints are valid, but it seems to me there are enough
people complaining about certain Toyota engines compared to other
engines (even Toyota engines from other years) that there was a design
flaw. Claiming otherwise seems to fly in the face of reality.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Mar 2007 15:22 GMT
>>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
>>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Ed

You're probably right. But, keep in mind that in your last message (the one
I'm replying to now), you were debating with Scott, who is proof of a
condition gerontologists formally recognized many years ago: Minds which
atrophy from lack of use, often as quickly as muscles.
Scott in Florida - 27 Mar 2007 16:11 GMT
>> No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a
>> dealer
>> developed sludge....
>
>And you can prove this? And what was the correct service intervals?
>7500 miles, 5000 mile, 3000 miles?

No one has ever posted their service records to prove they developed
sludge if they serviced their car at a dealer.

Only reason I challenged anyone to post them is that most people would
trust that evidence.

There were a lot of people that 'said' they changed their oil at 7500
or less...but no one posted their receipts.

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Whitelightning - 27 Mar 2007 16:08 GMT
>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a dealer
> developed sludge....

I suggest Scott you do some research , try back issues of the St. Petersburg
Times and the Tampa Tribune as well as the Orlando papers. The States
Atternoy General got involved in the rucus in Florida and there was talk of
a class action suit 3, 4 years ago.

Whitelightning
Scott in Florida - 27 Mar 2007 16:21 GMT
>>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down
>>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Whitelightning

I repeat.

No one has developed sludge in a Toyota engine if they changed their
oil as recommended by Toyota.

No one has posted valid receipts to prove they changed oil and
developed sludge.

One thing Toyota did was install a maintenance reminder light to keep
soccer moms from developing sludge due to not changing their oil.

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Ed White - 27 Mar 2007 18:50 GMT
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...@mindspring.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:08:25 GMT, "Whitelightning"
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> No one has developed sludge in a Toyota engine if they changed their
> oil as recommended by Toyota.

Always hard to prove a negative. I doubt you can prove that at least
one Toyota owner did suffer from sludge even though they changed their
oil as recommended.

> No one has posted valid receipts to prove they changed oil and
> developed sludge.

You are addressing a fairly small audience here. Only a small
percentage of people who have read this newsgroup ever had a sludge
problem and an even smaller percentage could produce years worth of
reciepts for oil changes. I do my own oil changes. I can find reciepts
for the filters and oil, and I can even show you entries in my log
book, but I am sure you would not consider these "valid reciepts."

> One thing Toyota did was install a maintenance reminder light to keep
> soccer moms from developing sludge due to not changing their oil.

An excellent idea.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html

Ed
Scott in Florida - 27 Mar 2007 19:26 GMT
>On Mar 27, 11:21 am, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...@mindspring.net>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>one Toyota owner did suffer from sludge even though they changed their
>oil as recommended.

I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never
fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct
interval.

Of course I haven't talked to them all, but I've never heard from one
that said they fixed a sludged engine with the proper oil changes.

>> No one has posted valid receipts to prove they changed oil and
>> developed sludge.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>for the filters and oil, and I can even show you entries in my log
>book, but I am sure you would not consider these "valid reciepts."

The only reason I say dealer oil changes, is that I KNOW they were
done.

I'd bet everything I have that your engines contain no sludge.

You change your oil.

>> One thing Toyota did was install a maintenance reminder light to keep
>> soccer moms from developing sludge due to not changing their oil.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Ed

You think this person changed their oil?

Inez of Lanett AL (03/13/07)
My motor just quit. I knew that my oil changes were current, well,
current enough not to warrant a blown motor. I could feel something
the week before happening to my car, but wasn't sure.

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Whitelightning - 28 Mar 2007 03:48 GMT
> I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never
> fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct
> interval.

Do yoiu really think they would tell you otherwise?

> Of course I haven't talked to them all, but I've never heard from one
> that said they fixed a sludged engine with the proper oil changes.

Whitelightning
Scott in Florida - 31 Mar 2007 00:08 GMT
>> I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never
>> fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct
>> interval.
>
>Do yoiu really think they would tell you otherwise?

Absolutely!

Service people are not like service writers.

Signature


Scott in  Florida

C. E. White - 02 Apr 2007 17:17 GMT
>>> I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never
>>> fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Service people are not like service writers.

How would they know if the oil was changed regularly? Oh wait, I know - if
the engine has sludge, the oil was not changed regularly...

Ed
DH - 26 Mar 2007 14:05 GMT
> Yeah I looked at CR when I bought my 92 Ranger 171K miles ago. Think they
> described my engine as a "primitive but reliable design". The truck didn't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> was ok for toyota to intentionally try to hide the engine sludge problems
> they were having for so many years?

Who said "Toyota can do no wrong?"

However, in spite of all the noise about sludgy Toyota engines, after all
these years, I have yet to meet someone who actually has a sludgy Toyota
engine.  Why is that?  Maybe it's only because the engine is predisposed to
sludging WHEN IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED.

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>> Vax clusters up for longer than that.  And we weren't a 24X7 shop, that's
>> just how Vaxes worked.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Mar 2007 14:05 GMT
>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that
>> is not anecdotal.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Name one food you ate yesterday.
Matt Macchiarolo - 24 Mar 2007 14:25 GMT
>>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that
>>> is not anecdotal.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> Name one food you ate yesterday.

Breakfast: Oatmeal
Lunch: Ham sandwich with lettuce and cheese, some baked rice snack chips,
grapes
Afternoon snack: Ched-Airs
Dinner: At a local restaurant, sauteed perch, rice, steamed vegatables, Bass
pale ale

What's your point?
JoeSpareBedroom - 24 Mar 2007 15:07 GMT
>>>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that
>>>> is not anecdotal.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> What's your point?

Your food list is anecdotal, and therefore 100% invalid. If you disagree,
explain why you disagree.
trainfan1 - 22 Mar 2007 23:38 GMT
>>I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Your CNC programming acquaintance is full of crap.

Anecdotal, ta' boot.

Rob  (Not too far from Gleason Works)

> RCE   (Eisboch)
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 23:40 GMT
>>>I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC
>>>machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Rob  (Not too far from Gleason Works)

How would you modify what I typed, but make it NOT anecdotal? Be very
careful how you answer this question.
Dante - 20 Mar 2007 19:05 GMT
>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that
>> were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with
[quoted text clipped - 162 lines]
>
> Ed

As if that/this means anything (Google results):

    Search for Ford AND truck AND recall:    1,220,000 results
    Search for Toyota AND truck AND recall:  814,000 results
    Search for Chevy AND truck AND recall:   801,000 results
    Search for Dodge AND truck AND recall:   790,000 results

Dante
DH - 20 Mar 2007 19:09 GMT
>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that were
>> intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I won't
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Just a quick Google of "Toyota Tundra recall" got over 600,000 hits. Here
> are a few references from just the first page of hits:

[snip]
> extraordinarily high quality either. And before you ask, a Google search
> for "Ford F250 Recall" got around 123,00 hits. It is hard to do
[snip]

> Ed

You must have missed my lecture on the valuelessness of "Google Hits" as a
measure of anything.

Let's see, we'll do this by example:

Google "ed white" genius     => 793 hits
Google "ed white" moron     => 5,480 hits

Well, Ed, the Google on you is in and I'm afraid the results are not good...

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:00 GMT
>>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products
>>> that were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> You must have missed my lecture on the valuelessness of "Google
> Hits" as a measure of anything.

Actually I agree with this. I was just trying to make the point that
there are lots of people who have complained about Tundras. Sometimes
Toyota fans tend to think that all Toyotas are perfect.

> Let's see, we'll do this by example:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Well, Ed, the Google on you is in and I'm afraid the results are not
> good...

This morning I got 802 hits for "ed white" genius. I guess I am
gaining ground :)

Ed
DH - 22 Mar 2007 14:25 GMT
>>> Just a quick Google of "Toyota Tundra recall" got over 600,000 hits.
>>> Here are a few references from just the first page of hits:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Google "ed white" genius     => 793 hits

[snip just one line]

>> Well, Ed, the Google on you is in and I'm afraid the results are not
>> good...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ed

And snipping that one line and posting a reply should also boost the ratio.

:-)

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Scott in Florida - 22 Mar 2007 14:39 GMT
>>>> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products
>>>> that were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
>Ed

I just did a goggle

Ed White Toyota Fan

and got 784,000 hits....

Signature


Scott in  Florida

C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 15:46 GMT
> I just did a goggle
>
> Ed White Toyota Fan
>
> and got 784,000 hits....

You really should do "Ed White" Toyota fan (111 hits), or "Ed White
Toyota Fan" (0 hits). The quote marks are important.

Ed
Scott in Florida - 22 Mar 2007 16:07 GMT
>> I just did a goggle
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Ed

LOL....I know....

Just jestin ya a bit...

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Matt Macchiarolo - 22 Mar 2007 08:59 GMT
> I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that were
> intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I won't
> do it a second time unless they give me the product for free, and pay me a
> hefty aggravation bonus any time it had what I considered to be a stupid
> problem. $1000.00 per incident would be about right.
That pretty much rules out Honda for me...
Repairman - 24 Mar 2007 13:47 GMT
The bait is stinky, sorry no bite on that bullshit sonny, try again........
Dave and Trudy - 21 Mar 2007 08:19 GMT
>> One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>> automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six speed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Maxwell House is cheaper than edible coffee.

Dummy,
Your're supposed to drink the coffee not eat it!!!!!!!! (Just joking)/

DaveD
Scott in Florida - 20 Mar 2007 20:44 GMT
>One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six
>speed automatic even before the $3000 rebate on the F250 is figured
>in.
>
>Ed

Ford knows what their trucks are worth....

It turns out Toyota is worth more if they sell for more.

People tend to buy the best tool for the job.

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Mike Hunter - 21 Mar 2007 18:38 GMT
You are correct, people in the US know the best place to spend their hard
earned money.  That is why the F150 has been the best selling truck and the
best selling vehicle, as well, for thirty years   Ford sells more F series
trucks alone than Toyota sell trucks and cars combined   ;)

mike

>>One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>>automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> People tend to buy the best tool for the job.
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Mar 2007 18:44 GMT
You might want to talk to your doctor about the frequency with which you
repeat yourself. Seriously.

> You are correct, people in the US know the best place to spend their hard
> earned money.  That is why the F150 has been the best selling truck and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>
>> People tend to buy the best tool for the job.
Mike Hunter - 21 Mar 2007 19:30 GMT
It is necessary to repeat well known facts, since some folks in the NGs are
slow learners and uninformed.  They like to think Toyota has all the best
sellers, when actually only the Camry is a best seller.  ;)

mike

> You might want to talk to your doctor about the frequency with which you
> repeat yourself. Seriously.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>> mike
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Mar 2007 19:51 GMT
Isn't there anyone in the house to explain "embarrassing" to you?

> It is necessary to repeat well known facts, since some folks in the NGs
> are slow learners and uninformed.  They like to think Toyota has all the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>>
>>> mike
razz - 21 Mar 2007 22:30 GMT
I guess it's pointless for me to repeat myself also. Being a Toy mechanic,
and I do mean Toy, for some time, I know for fact they are NO BETTER.
> Isn't there anyone in the house to explain "embarrassing" to you?
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >>>
> >>> mike
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Mar 2007 22:41 GMT
Other mechanics have opinions which differ from yours. Do they have
complaints about Toyotas? Yes. Do they still think they're better? Also yes.

>I guess it's pointless for me to repeat myself also. Being a Toy mechanic,
> and I do mean Toy, for some time, I know for fact they are NO BETTER.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> >>>
>> >>> mike
DH - 21 Mar 2007 23:00 GMT
>I guess it's pointless for me to repeat myself also. Being a Toy mechanic,
> and I do mean Toy, for some time, I know for fact they are NO BETTER.

I'll try to remember to ask my mechanic's opinion of Toyotas.  If I ever see
him again.

>> Isn't there anyone in the house to explain "embarrassing" to you?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> >
>> > mike

Ummm... and don't they now outsell Chrysler in the US?  And Ford's in danger
of becoming #3 in the US market.

>> >> You might want to talk to your doctor about the frequency with which
> you
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> >>>
>> >>> mike

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Wickeddoll® - 21 Mar 2007 23:13 GMT
"DH" ...
> "razz" ...
>>I guess it's pointless for me to repeat myself also. Being a Toy mechanic,
>> and I do mean Toy, for some time, I know for fact they are NO BETTER.
>
> I'll try to remember to ask my mechanic's opinion of Toyotas.  If I ever
> see him again.

*snipping rest*

Bwahahaha!

Natalie
razz - 22 Mar 2007 00:12 GMT
Why? You tired of bringing you r POS to him.
> >I guess it's pointless for me to repeat myself also. Being a Toy mechanic,
> > and I do mean Toy, for some time, I know for fact they are NO BETTER.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> mike
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:02 GMT
>>One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>>automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> People tend to buy the best tool for the job.

In a perfect world than might be true. However, here in the real world
it isn't, but you probably already knew that.

Ed
DH - 21 Mar 2007 19:23 GMT
> One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
> automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six speed
> automatic even before the $3000 rebate on the F250 is figured in.
>
> Ed

Y'know... I looked up F250 pricing on Edmunds and I was astonished to find
that the V10 option was a mere $600.

I suppose I should presume that Ford knows what they're doing with option
pricing but that seems awfully low.  I can't help but think that they could
make an extra $400 (or more profit) by marking up that V10 option a bit.  I
would expect someone looking at the fuel economy of a V10 can't be anywhere
near as much price-sensitive as they are determined to get a LOT of power.

Do you think they're leaving money on the table or do you think that most
V10 purchases are simply... "well, as long as you have one in stock and it's
only a few hundred more..."?

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matt Macchiarolo - 22 Mar 2007 09:04 GMT
It's like the difference between a V6 and a V8, it's not like you're buying
two engines as in buying the smaller version and upgrading later. IMHO most
buyers opt for the the diesel instead of the V10, take a look at that
upcharge....

>> One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>> automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six speed
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> V10 purchases are simply... "well, as long as you have one in stock and
> it's only a few hundred more..."?
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:05 GMT
>> One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed
>> automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> most V10 purchases are simply... "well, as long as you have one in
> stock and it's only a few hundred more..."?

Actually, I think for most commercial truck buyer, the V-10 is not
needed. Unless you are towing very heavy loads in hilly terrain, the
5.4L is more than adequate. And if you are towing very heavy loads in
heavy terrain, you need the diesel.

Ed
DH - 21 Mar 2007 13:56 GMT
> If I wanted to tow a heavy load, I would go for an F250/F350. They also
> have a six speed transmission. Ford/GM/Dodge all have 3/4 and 1 ton trucks
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Tundra to other trucks capable of towing heavy loads, then I contend you
> must compare it to the heavy duty pick-ups from Ford, GM, and Dodge.

Right.  And the Impala should be compared to the Lexus ES 460.

It's a half-ton.  Compare it to the half-tons.

> And if you want to limit your discussion to big "gas" engines, then here
> are the engine comparisons:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> So if you wanted to tow a heavy load, which truck would be the better
> choice?

I see that Toyota has more torque and more horsepower than the GM and Dodge
3/4 ton pickups, outclassed only by a Ford V-10.  And probably that giant
Navistar diesel engine, which is a $6K option.

I wonder which gasser gets better fuel economy?  Hmm... Ford, GM and Dodge
don't appear to have supplied fuel economy figures to Edmunds.  Perhaps that
answers my question.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Hunter - 21 Mar 2007 18:48 GMT
Toyota buyer do not understand trucks.  Look at the hugh differance in the
RPMs at which the HP and torque is acheved.  That is why the Ford will drag
the Tundra backward all over the lot in a Tug of War

Tundra - 5.7L V-8 - 381 hp @ 5600 rpm   401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm
F250 - 6.8L V-10 - 362 hp @ 4750 rpm  457 lb. -ft @ 3250 rpm

mike

>> If I wanted to tow a heavy load, I would go for an F250/F350. They also
>> have a six speed transmission. Ford/GM/Dodge all have 3/4 and 1 ton
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> So if you wanted to tow a heavy load, which truck would be the better
>> choice?
DH - 21 Mar 2007 19:08 GMT
> Toyota buyer do not understand trucks.  Look at the hugh differance in the
> RPMs at which the HP and torque is acheved.  That is why the Ford will
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> mike

I'd like to know what you think you're commenting on...

[quote]
I see that Toyota has more torque and more horsepower than the GM and Dodge
3/4 ton pickups, outclassed only by a Ford V-10.  And probably that giant
Navistar diesel engine, which is a $6K option.
[end quote]

Or do you think that "Ford" is sometimes spelled "GM" or "Dodge?"

However, as long as you're at it...

> Look at the hugh differance in the RPMs at which the HP and torque is
> acheved."

Yes, let's.  Oooh...  Looks like Toyota has a major advantage in lower-end
torque over the GM and Dodge products.

>> Tundra - 5.7L V-8 - 381 hp @ 5600 rpm   401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm
>> F250 - 6.8L V-10 - 362 hp @ 4750 rpm  457 lb. -ft @ 3250 rpm
>> Silverado HD2500 6.0L V-8 - 367 hp @ 5500 rpm  375 lb. - ft @ 4300 rpm
>> Dodge 2500 - 345 hp @ 5400 rpm   375 lb. - ft @ 4200 rpm

Thanks for pointing it out.

Bill Ford and Alan Mullaly should be thankful that Toyota hasn't introduced
a V-10.

...yet.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Whitelightning - 21 Mar 2007 23:08 GMT
If you like the Toyota so much, and love pumping money into japan's economy,
dont let the door hit you where the sun dont shine on the way out.

I do notice Toyota aint doing so well in the Nextel series.  Waltrip cant
get qualified,
and Dale Jarrett is burning up his provisionals to get on the track..

Whitelightning
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:30 GMT
> If you like the Toyota so much, and love pumping money into japan's
> economy,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Whitelightning

The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in
those cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful
way.

Ed
Whitelightning - 22 Mar 2007 16:16 GMT
> The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in those
> cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful way.
>
> Ed

Perhaps not, perhaps yes.  But consider the power plant, a  358 cid cam in
block 2 valves per cylinder , push rods, and a single 4 barrel carb pushing
a 3400 pound car upwards of 220 mph, and toyota cant get enough horsepower
out of their engine.
And a lot of what goes on on the track does find its way into cars..

Whitelightning
DH - 22 Mar 2007 16:51 GMT
>> The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in those
>> cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful way.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Whitelightning

So my 2009 Impala will have a 4-barrel carb?  Right.

"Back to the Future - NASCAR Style"

What goes on at some race circuits may find its way into cars but NASCAR
isn't one of those circuits.

Audi was winning in Europe last year with a DIESEL!  Now, that's cool!

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

David M - 23 Mar 2007 02:19 GMT
>> The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in those
>> cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful way.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> out of their engine.
> And a lot of what goes on on the track does find its way into cars..

True, but Toyota is not going to sell a carbureted pushrod engine in any
car or truck model they make, ever.

Same for the Detroit-3.

> Whitelightning

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 17 days 13:30

Ed White - 24 Mar 2007 02:58 GMT
On Mar 22, 11:16 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> > The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in those
> > cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful way.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Whitelightning

In your dreams. Nobody builds engines with carbs any more. Toyota
doesn't sell any push rod engines in the US. Nextel cup cars are
highly regulated versions of a 1972 Chevy Winston Cup Car. The
suspension is a many times revised 1965 Ford NASCAR front suspension,
and the rear suspension is a highly refined 1970 GMC truck coil spring
suspension with a refined Ford 9 inch rear gear. Nobody builds
anything that crude for a road car. The cheapest Kia you can buy in
the US is more technologically advanced than any Nextel Cup Car.
Nextel Cup Cars are highly polished turds, but they are still turds.
And now, all the turds have to fit the same turdplate (i.e. template).
If it wasn't for the decals, you would not be able to tell the cars
apart. NASCAR has degenerated into WWE on asphalt. The money is good,
the racing is fake.

Ed
Dave and Trudy - 22 Mar 2007 08:38 GMT
>> Toyota buyer do not understand trucks.  Look at the hugh differance in
>> the RPMs at which the HP and torque is acheved.  That is why the Ford
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Navistar diesel engine, which is a $6K option.
> [end quote]

In fact, my "giant" Navistar diesel is only 0.3L larger than the Tundra V8.

DaveD
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:28 GMT
>> If I wanted to tow a heavy load, I would go for an F250/F350. They
>> also
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> It's a half-ton.  Compare it to the half-tons.

I would, except Toyota is trying to create the impression that the new
Tundra is a heavy duty truck. If you want to compare truckls intended
for people pulling boats to the lake or small trailer, I can do that.
However, the Toyota ads are trying to create the impression that the
Tundra is a serious work truck. If you want a Ford serious work truck
you should get an F250, not an F150 (although F150s are very good
trucks). The Tundra line now competes with the whole lower end of the
Ford Line in my opinion from a stripper F150 to a crew cab F350. YOu
need to compare similarly equipped trucks. in some case that means
comparing the Tundra to an F150 and in other to an F250. Of course as
soon as you throw the F250 into the comparison, the Tundra comes out
looking very weak, so Toyota won't make that comparison. Toyota wants
it both way - the y only want to compare there trucks to the other
guys 1/2 toms, while trying to give the impression that it has the
capabilities of 3/4 ton trucks. As I said before, If I wanted to tow
10,000 lbs, I'd get an F250/F350 even though an F150 is rated to tow
that much.

>> And if you want to limit your discussion to big "gas" engines, then
>> here
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> giant
> Navistar diesel engine, which is a $6K option.

Don't forget that both Chevy and Dodge offer more powerful diesels as
well.

> I wonder which gasser gets better fuel economy?  Hmm... Ford, GM and
> Dodge
> don't appear to have supplied fuel economy figures to Edmunds.
> Perhaps that
> answers my question.

No one supplies gas mileage figures for trucks with a GVW over 8500
lbs, CAFE doesn't require them to be reported. The Ford V-10 and
Chevrolet 6.0L V-8 are only available in HD trucks with a high GVW, so
the gas mileage is not reported. Dodge does sell the "Hemi" in 1/2 ton
trucks, so they report the gas mileage for that:

Tundra 5.7L V-8 Automatic - 14 city / 18 highway / 16 combined
Dodge Ram 1500 5/7L V-8 Automatic - 15 city / 19 highway / 17 combined

None of the Tundras have a GVW over 7200 lb, so they have to report
gas mileage. Of course with a GVW of only 7200 the Tundra has a
limited payload capacity compared to any HD truck. So, it is obvious
that the Tundra ads that try to create the impression that Tundras are
a Heavy Duty truck are miss leading.

Ed
Big Al - 20 Mar 2007 15:30 GMT
> >I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Where did you find the gear ratios for the above trucks and do you have them
for the Nissan Titan? Did you ever see a Dodge Mega Cab 1500? The 06 is a
full 3/4 ton truck disguised as a 1/2 ton.

Just wondering....

Al
Big Al - 20 Mar 2007 15:36 GMT
> > >I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive
> >
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Al

BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??

Al
JoeSpareBedroom - 20 Mar 2007 15:36 GMT
>> > >I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Al

Go check their web site.
Big Al - 21 Mar 2007 03:59 GMT
> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
> >
> > Al
>
> Go check their web site.

Unlike you, I did:

Engine, , Vortec 8.1L V8 SFI, (330 hp [245.8 kW] @ 4200 rpm, 450 lb-ft of
torque [607.5 N-m] @ 3200 rpm) (L18) $950.00

Right from the GMC website. The Duramax is $6030 now!

Al
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Mar 2007 11:52 GMT
>> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Unlike you, I did:

Yes. Unlike me. Be your own secretary.
Big Al - 21 Mar 2007 16:26 GMT
> >> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Yes. Unlike me. Be your own secretary.

No wonder you have a spare bedroom:)
My Name Is Nobody - 21 Mar 2007 20:09 GMT
>> >> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No wonder you have a spare bedroom:)

LMFAO, now that is funny....
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:33 GMT
>> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Right from the GMC website. The Duramax is $6030 now!

I don't see the 8.1L listed as an option for a 2007 GMC. Where did you
see it?

Ed
Big Al - 22 Mar 2007 16:16 GMT
> >> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Ed

Right here. What a URL! Anyway, just build a 2500HD and when you get to
options you'll find it. Did a "Tiny URL" it's at the bottom.

http://www.gmc.com/byo/selectOption.gc;jsessionid=TZLH1C1TERNAICQN1ECSCZQKBXMQEI
MO?fromColor=true&make=gc&style=WT%201SA&zip=75081&driveType=2WD%20&boxSize=Long
%20Box&subModel=2500HD&boxSizeId=21&makeId=012&cabSize=Regular%20Cab&cabSizeId=1
&model=Sierra&styleId=WT%201SA&subModelId=31&year=2007&modelId=013&pvc=61391&dri
veTypeId=7&&vehicleModel=/images/gmbp/48012/vehicle/2007/med/31_8555_c1_b21.jpg&
exteriorColorChipUrl=/images/gmbp/color/chips/ext/med/8555.jpg&interiorColorChip
Url=/images/gmbp/color/chips/int/med/69C.jpg&exteriorColorId=41U&interiorColorId
=69C&seatTypeId=AE7&colorOptions=41U^69C^AE7&exteriorColor=Onyx%20Black%20&inter
iorColor=Dark%20Pewter%20Cloth%20&colorVisited=true&inValidOptions=&brand=sierra
&imageNameExt=_c1_b21&site=&originatingBrand=sierra&iPi=2&fPi=3


http://tinyurl.com/23gtzx

Al
Ed White - 24 Mar 2007 02:49 GMT
> > >> > BTW: GMC is still showing the 8.1 as an option??
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the link. I am confused. If I go to www.gmc.com, select
2500HD or 3500HD from the horizontal menu bar and then select engine
choices from the vertical menu bar, they don't show the 8.1L V-8.
Likewise, if I pick the Specification menu item from the far left
menu, then select 2500HD or 3500HD from the horizontal menu, the only
engine options listed are the 6.0L Gas Engine and the 6.6L Diesel.
Even stranger, if I pick the "Build Your GMC" Menu Item, select 2007
and then pick the model drop down box, I don't see a choice for the
2500HD or 3500HD, only the 2500HD Classic or 3500HD Classic models
(hold overs from last year). Weird. Yet your link clearly goes
directly to a 2500HD (not classic).  Finally, Edmunds.com doesn't list
the 8.1L V-8 as an option for 2007 GMC 2500HD or 3500HD (not classic)
but they do list it as an option for the "Classic" models.

Weird.

Ed
David F. Mishiwiec Sr. - 24 Mar 2007 18:42 GMT
>    <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Al

The Dodge site now shows the Mega Cab as only available for the Ram 2500
or 3500.

Signature

***************************************************************************************************************************
David F. Mishiwiec Sr.

"Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored
with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now,
the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect -- and we have no
one to blame but ourselves." - Dick Armey, former Republican House
Majority Leader, in the 10/29/06 edition of the Washington Post.
***************************************************************************************************************************

Scott in Florida - 24 Mar 2007 19:51 GMT
>"Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored
>with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now,
>the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect -- and we have no
>one to blame but ourselves." - Dick Armey, former Republican House
>Majority Leader, in the 10/29/06 edition of the Washington Post.

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Mike Hunter - 24 Mar 2007 20:03 GMT
That happened because the President, and many Republicans, wanted to move to
the 'center' to gain Dimocrate support.  Too bad they did not realize the
only thing the Dims wanted was to get back in power, not do what is right
for the country.   If you doubt that look at what they are doing too the
county, now that they are back in power.

.

mike

>>"Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored
>>with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nate Nagel - 24 Mar 2007 22:26 GMT
Aw, geez, not this sh.t again.

If you think your statement does not apply in spades to the present
administration (not saying whether or not it applies to any Dems) you're
just as stupid as I always thought you were.

nate

> That happened because the President, and many Republicans, wanted to move to
> the 'center' to gain Dimocrate support.  Too bad they did not realize the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>
>>Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Mike Hunter - 20 Mar 2007 16:14 GMT
As quoted directly for the Ford Dealer Order Guide   What part of, "Trailer
Tow Package" includes Class IV trailer hitch receiver, 7-pin wiring harness,
upgraded radiator and upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler (requires
4.6L or  5.4L Triton® V8); aux. trans. oil cooler only with 4.2L V6 A/T, did
you not understand?

mike

>> Aparently have not been following the thread.  The dicsssion was about
>> Tundra phony TV ads and their 10,000 towing ability. .  If one is looking
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>> radiator and upgraded auxiliary transmission oil cooler (requires 4.6L or
>> 5.4L Triton® V8); aux. trans. oil cooler only with 4.2L V6 A/T
C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 14:42 GMT
> As quoted directly for the Ford Dealer Order Guide   What part of,
> "Trailer Tow Package" includes Class IV trailer hitch receiver,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> mike

I don't understand what you are trying to say now. According to the
ordering guide, if you get the 4.2L V6 with an automatic transmission,
you get an auxiliary transmission cooler (apparently, you normally
don't get an auxiliary transmission cooler at all with the V-6). If
you get the 4.6L or 5.4L V-8s you get an UPGRADED radiator and an
UPGRADED auxiliary transmission cooler. So with either V-8 and the
trailer towing package, you get an upgraded radiator and an upgraded
auxiliary transmission cooler (one of the V-8s is required to get the
upgraded components). For the V-6 with the trailer towing package you
get an auxiliary transmission cooler (you can't upgrade something that
wasn't included in the first place). Go look at the complete ordering
guide and things should be clear even to you. And I have already
pointed you to an actual truck on a dealer's lot that included the
trailer tow package and a V-6 engine. Wasn't that enough for you? Are
you so dense that you can't recognize that you have the facts all
screwed up?

Ed
David M - 23 Mar 2007 02:06 GMT
> Wasn't that enough for you? Are
> you so dense that you can't recognize that you have the facts all
> screwed up?
>
> Ed

Well, at least he didn't claim that the 1st digit of the VIN indicates
how much of the trailer hitch was made in the US, for a change.

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 17 days 13:18

Picasso - 25 Mar 2007 14:19 GMT
>> Aparently have not been following the thread.  The dicsssion was about
>> Tundra phony TV ads and their 10,000 towing ability. .  If one is looking
[quoted text clipped - 143 lines]
>>>> Ed- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -

The big question is, why would you want a v6 f150?
Ed White - 27 Mar 2007 18:16 GMT
> The big question is, why would you want a v6 f150

Cheaper, better gas mileage, will do everything you need to do.

In my mind, a better question is why does anyone need a 5.7L 4 Door
Pick-up with a hard tonneau cover over the pick-up bed?

Ed
Pete Moss - 16 Mar 2007 23:40 GMT
> Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells 35%
> of the full-size trucks in the US.  Chevy 30% and Toyota a measly 5%.  The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> mike

The base engine in the Silverado is a V6 as well.
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 01:09 GMT
Duh!  The Tundra in the commercial pulling the 10,000 LB was not a base
model with a six speed tranny

mike

>> Get real.  Ford is the Silverado competition not the Tundra.  Ford sells
>> 35%
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
> The base engine in the Silverado is a V6 as well.
Pete Moss - 17 Mar 2007 04:58 GMT
> Duh!  The Tundra in the commercial pulling the 10,000 LB was not a base
> model with a six speed tranny
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> >>
> > The base engine in the Silverado is a V6 as well.

Duh, yourself. You're the one who made the spurious comment about the
Tundra having a V6 as the base engine. Everybody's full-size truck has a
V6 as the base engine on paper so they can say they offer it as a fuel
efficient option. How many of them actually show up on car lots?

I'm sure none of the Chevys in commercials have the V6 either.  Your
saying that the Tundra has a base V6 was a meaningless point.
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 19:38 GMT
What I was referring to was what one get for the price.  Do some comparison
shopping and you will discover a base V6 Tundra costs one MORE to drive home
than a base V8 from either GM, Ford or Dodge and they are better trucks

mike

.
> In article <F42dnXMNiPllrGbYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@ptd.net>,

>> Duh!  The Tundra in the commercial pulling the 10,000 LB was not a base
>> model with a six speed tranny
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'm sure none of the Chevys in commercials have the V6 either.  Your
> saying that the Tundra has a base V6 was a meaningless point.
JoeSpareBedroom - 17 Mar 2007 19:42 GMT
Dance Mike Dance

> What I was referring to was what one get for the price.  Do some
> comparison shopping and you will discover a base V6 Tundra costs one MORE
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> I'm sure none of the Chevys in commercials have the V6 either.  Your
>> saying that the Tundra has a base V6 was a meaningless point.
Pete Moss - 17 Mar 2007 20:05 GMT
> What I was referring to was what one get for the price.  Do some comparison
> shopping and you will discover a base V6 Tundra costs one MORE to drive home
> than a base V8 from either GM, Ford or Dodge and they are better trucks
>
> mike

I agree...the Tundras are better trucks!

I own a 2004 Chevy. It is a total piece of crap. In the 17000 miles I've
driven it, it has needed more repairs than the last 300,000 miles I
drove with Toyotas.

I bought a Chevy out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, hoping to give
an American company another chance. Never again!

When GM goes under it will be their own damn fault.
Jeff - 17 Mar 2007 20:41 GMT
> What I was referring to was what one get for the price.  Do some
> comparison shopping and you will discover a base V6 Tundra costs one MORE
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> I'm sure none of the Chevys in commercials have the V6 either.  Your
>> saying that the Tundra has a base V6 was a meaningless point.

You forgot to say, "I my opinion."
Ed White - 19 Mar 2007 20:00 GMT
> Duh, yourself. You're the one who made the spurious comment about the
> Tundra having a V6 as the base engine. Everybody's full-size truck has a
> V6 as the base engine on paper so they can say they offer it as a fuel
> efficient option. How many of them actually show up on car lots?

Crossroads Ford in Cary NC claims to have 14 2007 F150s with V-6s in
their inventory
Capital Ford in Raleigh NC claims to have 24 2007 F150s with V-6s in
their inventory

Ed
C. E. White - 29 Mar 2007 02:28 GMT
I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you
which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of
the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The Tundra
clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually NEED
trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear
demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really do
much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final
statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than the
competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the
start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be
interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 feet
shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained
during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually correct
it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something that
was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road
Comparison Test,  Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping
distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A
similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver 2007
pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge 1500 -
196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet.
So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional
brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag race
your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck.

Ed
Larry - 29 Mar 2007 18:36 GMT
> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Ed

I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford
commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD
Accord.  I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested
a FWD Fusion.
Larry
PerfectReign - 29 Mar 2007 19:18 GMT
> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> FWD Fusion.
> Larry

Exactly. It is kind of like Microsoft showing how secure Windows 2003 is
compared to Linux. They compare Win2003 to some older version of Red Hat,
or worse, when they compare the TCO of upgrading to Linux from windows
and include training costs vs. simply staying with Windows.

Doh!

As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife yesterday.
She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.

Her 240 HP V6 completely outran my 310 HP V8. Of course, her car weighs
3,400 lbs. compared to my truck at almost 6,000 lbs.

:P

Signature

kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

Free Compean and Ramos
http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp
http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46

Leythos - 29 Mar 2007 19:24 GMT
> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife yesterday.
> She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
>
> Her 240 HP V6 completely outran my 310 HP V8. Of course, her car weighs
> 3,400 lbs. compared to my truck at almost 6,000 lbs.

I was following a Ferrari something, red, the other day, and at each stop
the chap would gun it and then fly down the road - long twisting roads
with only a few stops. It was funny as he could not pull away from my
Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 truck. He kept looking back and I don't think that he
ever gained more than 50' on me :)

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Scott in Florida - 29 Mar 2007 19:25 GMT
>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife yesterday.
>> She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 truck. He kept looking back and I don't think that he
>ever gained more than 50' on me :)

I'm calling bull sh.t on this....LOL

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Leythos - 29 Mar 2007 19:36 GMT
>>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife yesterday.
>>> She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I'm calling bull sh.t on this....LOL

Maybe the chap didn't know what he had or how to drive it, but you could
hear his engine and it didn't sound like he was backing off it at all. I
just kept the foot on the floor and stayed right with him.

I'm going to be trading the Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 in on a FJ, but I don't
seem to be seeing any post by FJ owners.

Signature

Leythos

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

PerfectReign - 29 Mar 2007 19:49 GMT
>>>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife
>>>> yesterday. She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> I'm going to be trading the Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 in on a FJ, but I don't
> seem to be seeing any post by FJ owners.

I dunno about those. They're similar to the 4-runner, AFAIK.

I was just reading in my Diesel Power magazine about some company taking
older FJ40 model trucks and inserting some diesel (Cummins?) engine along
with various other upgrades. The cost runs around $90,000 for the whole
package....

...ahh, here we go:

http://www.tlc4x4.com/new/TruckDetail.asp?TruckID=17

TLC ICON 1960-1978 This is our new venture, and our first scratch built
Cruiser design. Custom built in low volume as a unique solution for
modern driving. Old school appearance with modern mechanical content. All
new powder coated aluminum body built on an original frame. Classic
styling, modern performance..... timeless utility. Available with
350-420HP fuel injected gas engines, or a 2.8 intercooled turbo diesel
with 277 Torque (biodiesel compatible), five speed manual or four speed
automatic transmissions. See more on the TLC ICON SITE!

http://www.tlcicon.com  

Price:  Starting at $96,050

Dad? Can I have one??

Please?

Signature

kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

closing the doors that surround me
so no one will ever penetrate
complete my retreat just to wait for the day
that never comes so i will laugh alone

Leythos - 29 Mar 2007 19:53 GMT
>>>>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife
>>>>> yesterday. She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Price:  Starting at $96,050

LOL, the FJ with option group #2 is about 30k and that's enough for me.

I looked at the 4runner and another SUV, but, it didn't appear that the FJ
frame was anything like the 4Runner frame and the 4Runner look more like
something my wife would drive.

The only thing I don't like about the FJ is that damn white top paint and
the lower visibility on the rear sides.

Signature

Leythos

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Mike Hunter - 29 Mar 2007 23:15 GMT
From what I read there are likely TWO in your state.  ;)

mike

>>>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife
>>>> yesterday.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I'm going to be trading the Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 in on a FJ, but I don't
> seem to be seeing any post by FJ owners.
Mike Hunter - 29 Mar 2007 23:14 GMT
The difference of course was, you THOUGHT you were in a racing, he KNEW he
was not.    LOL

mike

>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife yesterday.
>> She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Dakota Quad 4x4 v8 truck. He kept looking back and I don't think that he
> ever gained more than 50' on me :)
Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 01:09 GMT
> The difference of course was, you THOUGHT you were in a racing, he KNEW he
> was not.    LOL

The difference is that I know what a racing engine sounds like, and I'm
sure that he was stomping on it. I'm not saying that the Dakota V8 is any
kind of fast, but he sure didn't pull away during it.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Mike Hunter - 30 Mar 2007 01:15 GMT
Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL

mike

>> The difference of course was, you THOUGHT you were in a race, he KNEW he
>> was not.    LOL
>
> The difference is that I know what a racing engine sounds like, and I'm
> sure that he was stomping on it. I'm not saying that the Dakota V8 is any
> kind of fast, but he sure didn't pull away during it.
Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 01:32 GMT
> Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL

You must have missed my initial post where I say it could have been
because the chap didn't know how to handle the vehicle....

Have you ever driven a Dakota with the v8 magnum engine?

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Scott in Florida - 30 Mar 2007 01:46 GMT
>> Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL
>
>You must have missed my initial post where I say it could have been
>because the chap didn't know how to handle the vehicle....
>
>Have you ever driven a Dakota with the v8 magnum engine?

That story sounds like what happened to a friend of mine that owned a
Shelby 289 Ford Cobra.  He and I were going out for a beer.  An MGB
was next to us.  I glanced over and saw a puff of blue smoke coming
from the back of the B.

I punched my buddy and said "I think he is racing us!

Needless to say...he disappeared in the rear view mirrors.....

To say your truck could beat a Ferrari is about like an MGB beating a
Cobra....

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 01:55 GMT
>>> Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> To say your truck could beat a Ferrari is about like an MGB beating a
> Cobra....

You guys didn't read what I wrote - never said it could BEAT anything nor
did I try. I said that a chap in a Ferrari appear to be gunning it and
seemed frustrated that he could not pull away from me on the road we were
on.

Signature

Leythos

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:02 GMT
Obviously he was not trying to lose you  LOL

mike

>>>> Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> seemed frustrated that he could not pull away from me on the road we were
> on.
Stephen N. - 30 Mar 2007 02:06 GMT
>>Have you ever driven a Dakota with the v8 magnum engine?
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> To say your truck could beat a Ferrari is about like an MGB beating a
> Cobra....

Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are geared
to take advantage of the high speed AutoStrada and don't have the power
to blast out of the hole.  Trucks are usually geared pretty low so they
can accelerate pretty well for a vehicle of their weight/power.  An
F-150 Lightening will do 0-60 and 1/4 mile in 5.2/13.9 seconds.  That is
faster than a lot of Ferraris.

The Ferrari was most likely faster but you have to be a LOT faster to
really leave someone in the dust, at least in the first block.  Of
course, there are also Ferraris that will do it in 3/12 seconds as well.

Stephen N.--->and his daddy would have killed him if he'd crashed the
Ferrari...
Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 02:13 GMT
> Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are geared to
> take advantage of the high speed AutoStrada and don't have the power to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> really leave someone in the dust, at least in the first block.  Of course,
> there are also Ferraris that will do it in 3/12 seconds as well.

I have a 3.91 gear in the rear, which sucks most of the time, as I get
about 12 MPG, and on a wet road in 4x4 mode it will spin all 4 tires at
start and going into second, on dry only in 2x mode.

I think the big difference was that I know the roads and they have a lot
of curves and don't decel in them as the truck is solid in curves (and
don't read that as saying the the other car sucks in them, I didn't imply
that at all) - I think I just knew the road better and have enough to stay
up with him - but it was funny watching him try.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

PerfectReign - 30 Mar 2007 15:52 GMT
>> Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are geared
>> to take advantage of the high speed AutoStrada and don't have the power
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> imply that at all) - I think I just knew the road better and have enough
> to stay up with him - but it was funny watching him try.

...and just think how fast you would've been with a Cummins 5.9 in that
truck!

Signature

k

Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 15:58 GMT
>>> Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are geared
>>> to take advantage of the high speed AutoStrada and don't have the power
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> ...and just think how fast you would've been with a Cummins 5.9 in that
> truck!

I don't know, I've always avoided the non-gas engines.

Now I have to find a replacement for it, and it's dang hard.

I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo capacity
(an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and handles
curves real well - under $40K.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Ed White - 30 Mar 2007 17:42 GMT
> I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo capacity
> (an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and handles
> curves real well - under $40K.

Honda Ridgline?  Not much of a truck, but might be what you need. Or
if by SUV, you mean something with an encloded rear compartment, how
about a four cylinder RAV4 or CRV or Escape?

Ed
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:30 GMT
One is always best served by first driving all those that they believe will
suit their needs, then get a total drive home price for each and buy the one
that best suits their budget.

mike

>> I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo
>> capacity
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ed
PerfectReign - 30 Mar 2007 21:35 GMT
>>>> Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are
>>>> geared to take advantage of the high speed AutoStrada and don't have
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> capacity (an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and
> handles curves real well - under $40K.

My Avalanche is mid-size, has available 4WD, closed bed if needed,  
seating for six, gets roughly 18 mixed, has 310HP (at the flywheel), and
seems to handle curves well.  :P

http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/28

I picked it up for around $24K new.

I'd like something a little bigger, but find F650's hard to park at the
quickie mart.
Signature

k

SnoMan - 31 Mar 2007 03:05 GMT
>My Avalanche is mid-size, has available 4WD, closed bed if needed,  
>seating for six, gets roughly 18 mixed, has 310HP (at the flywheel), and
>seems to handle curves well.  :P

I drove a new trudra today with a 5.7 and trailer tow package with
4.30 gears and that truck is POWERFULL!!! The 5.3 Chevy is a wimp
compared to it. The 6 speed auto is smooth and has well matched ratios
and cruises at 65 MPH at 1700 RPM showing between 20 to 22 MPG in
instant MPG on a 10 minute highway cruise with a new tight engine.
When you jump on it if flat out explodes into action and it can take
off so quickly from a standstill it is like being shot out of a
catapult. With the 65 series tires that really grip the road on launch
it will realy still jump even when you light them up which is very
easy to do and it takes off like a shot while they are spinning.  It
has raw power that the GM truck can only dream of. There is a new gas
powered king on the block like it or not now that GM has retired the
8.1. That truck is built too with brake rotors that dwarf GM ones that
you can see just by looking at it. Yota did their homework and if this
is how they build a 1/2 ton (it has a 10.5 inch rear axle and massive
drive shaft too) Detriot better really worry when they build a 3/4 ton
model. You might pay less for GM truck but you will get less too. That
truck is going to go places.  
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
jcr - 31 Mar 2007 15:56 GMT
>> My Avalanche is mid-size, has available 4WD, closed bed if needed,  
>> seating for six, gets roughly 18 mixed, has 310HP (at the flywheel), and
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
What are the HP & torque ratings on the Tundra?
SnoMan - 31 Mar 2007 20:44 GMT
>What are the HP & torque ratings on the Tundra?

I seem to recall 381 HP and around 401 ft lbs of torque. It has a 32
valve V8 with varible valve timing and it has a flat power band  and
it pulls strongly from about 2000 RPM to redline of 6 grand. It is one
sweet motor. Quite honestly it would not need to be bigger to haul a
3/4 truck around because it easily out powers any gas truck engine
made today. The only gas SUV engine made today that would be a serious
match for it would be maybe a Ford V10.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
jcr - 01 Apr 2007 00:13 GMT
>> What are the HP & torque ratings on the Tundra?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Based on this, it appears that Toyota has upped the ante considerably
with the "bread-and-butter" segment of product that the US manufacturers
count on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
SnoMan - 01 Apr 2007 00:43 GMT
>Based on this, it appears that Toyota has upped the ante considerably
>with the "bread-and-butter" segment of product that the US manufacturers
>count on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>

It gets better. Rumor has it that when Toyota rolls out 3/4 and one
ton models they will offer the option of a CAT diesel. Not because
they cannot build a good motor themselves but because to penetrate
that niche market they can improve their odds with a US designed and
made diesel engine with a excellant reputation too. I cannot reveal my
source for this but I do beleive it to be fairly creditable and it
also makes a lot of sense too. Give how US trucks are made for a lot
of parts made in mexico, a Toyota truck built in US with a CAT could
be a nightmare for detriots diesel P/U sales.
PerfectReign - 01 Apr 2007 01:11 GMT
>>Based on this, it appears that Toyota has upped the ante considerably
>>with the "bread-and-butter" segment of product that the US manufacturers
>>count on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
>
> It gets better. Rumor has it that when Toyota rolls out 3/4 and one ton
> models they will offer the option of a CAT diesel.

That's what I've been reading, too.  

> Not because they
> cannot build a good motor themselves but because to penetrate that niche
> market they can improve their odds with a US designed and made diesel
> engine with a excellant reputation too.

Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.

> I cannot reveal my source for
> this

I read it in Diesel Power and I think in Truck Trend.

>but I do beleive it to be fairly creditable and it also makes a lot
> of sense too. Give how US trucks are made for a lot of parts made in
> mexico, a Toyota truck built in US with a CAT could be a nightmare for
> detriots diesel P/U sales.

Signature

k

SnoMan - 01 Apr 2007 01:21 GMT
>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.

This is quite true but a Toyota HD pickup would likely sell better
against US one with a US engine vs one designed and built by Toyota
because if it was built in US and had a US motor too it would be a lot
harder for Detriot to try to wave the flag and call it a import vs
"amercain" detriot trucks that use imported parts.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Jeff DeWitt - 01 Apr 2007 15:45 GMT
>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

I don't know, there are a lot of people (like me) who just aren't going
to buy a Japanese truck.  Doesn't matter where it was designed and built
if it says "Toyota" it's a Japanese truck.

That being said if I have the choice between say a Ford made in Mexico
or a Chebby made in the US, I'd go with the Chebby, even though I'd
really rather have a Ford.

(actually I want a new Studebaker!).

Jeff DeWitt
Noon-Air - 01 Apr 2007 15:50 GMT
PLEASE quit crossposting this crap

>>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Jeff DeWitt
PerfectReign - 01 Apr 2007 18:06 GMT
> PLEASE quit crossposting this crap

Please quit topposting.

Oh, and get a better newsreader. I'm sure they have them there in
Mississippi.

Signature

kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

closing the doors that surround me
so no one will ever penetrate
complete my retreat just to wait for the day
that never comes so i will laugh alone

Leythos - 01 Apr 2007 16:05 GMT
> I don't know, there are a lot of people (like me) who just aren't going to
> buy a Japanese truck.  Doesn't matter where it was designed and built if
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a Chebby made in the US, I'd go with the Chebby, even though I'd really
> rather have a Ford.

For the last 20 years I've bought American, as a matter of principal, and
because I wanted the horse power that I get from American vehicles. Two
days ago I bought my first foreign vehicle - a Toyota 4Runner Limited. To
me, while it doesn't have the HP that my other vehicles had, it has one
thing they never had - 22.9MPG based on how I drive it. Almost every
vehicle I've driven for the last 20 years has got between 12 and 15MPG on
highway, less based on city and my lead foot....

I looked at other SUV/Truck's from American dealers (No, I would never
consider a Ford - I won't buy from them, ever), but the Lexus has a couple
nice SUV, but too much money. The Chevy has a couple nice SUV types, but
they are huge and get bad MPG. The Nissan didn't appeal to me. The Audi's
looked Ok, but too much money...

To be honest, I wanted a FJ, but after I found out it requires Premium
gas, and those dang little passenger entry doors.... I still want the FJ,
but the 4Runner Limited was the next best option for me.

Sadly, I think that we're going to buy another one for my wife, she's
going to trade in her Town and Country (fully loaded) this summer for a
fully loaded 4Runner Limited or a Rav4 Limited.

Going through all of the online data, performance reviews (not just HP),
the reliability, the stats, the Toyota vehicles in this class seem to just
outshine the American vehicles.

Where the American vendors lost me was as follows:

1) Quality - Overall. I've had vehicles that requred 4 rear-ends, 3
transmissions, many computers, new drive shafts, breaks that failed
completely 4 or 5 times while driving, leaking gas tanks, etc... All on
vehicles less than a year old and with less than 5K on them.

2) MPG - none of my vehicles have ever got MORE than 15MPG on the highway.

3) Attitude - Their sales people are as bad as Insurance sales people.
Their service managers are like working with the maffia most times, always
deny and then only do what is obvious.

Don't get me wrong, most of my vehicles have been between $28K and $35K in
price before we talked them down to a reasonable amount of profit, but,
I've experienced MAJOR problems with every American vehicle I've owned,
all my life.

While I may find the same with Toyota, I'm willing to take the chance and
hope that it will be different, since I know it won't be different with
another American car.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Jeff DeWitt - 01 Apr 2007 16:15 GMT
>>I don't know, there are a lot of people (like me) who just aren't going to
>>buy a Japanese truck.  Doesn't matter where it was designed and built if
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> hope that it will be different, since I know it won't be different with
> another American car.

Your money, your choice.

I've got a 96 Cherokee with the 4.0 straight six.  Best car I've ever
had, I've driven the piss out of it for over 320,000 miles with very
little trouble, one alternator, one water pump, one clutch, and then at
around 300,000 a rod bearing started making noise so I had a new engine
put in and plan on driving it for years to come.

I'd drive that little Jeep anyhwhere, and as with that many miles pretty
much have!

Jeff DeWitt
SnoMan - 01 Apr 2007 17:38 GMT
>I've got a 96 Cherokee with the 4.0 straight six.  Best car I've ever
>had, I've driven the piss out of it for over 320,000 miles with very
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I'd drive that little Jeep anyhwhere, and as with that many miles pretty
>much have!

That Jeep is nor longer a Jeep as they are made today because the 4.0
was AMC engine and well designed and sturdy not like the import
engines they are using in some newer Jeep models today. I buy quality
not nationality and Toyota did not get to were they are today by
building junk nor did Detriot loose so much market share for a good
reason, lower quality and value. Detriot banked on the "buy americain"
for years to save their cookies and they still have not learned that
if you make a good product is sells itself without 5000 or 10000
dollar clearance rebates.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Jeffrey DeWitt - 01 Apr 2007 21:57 GMT
>> I've got a 96 Cherokee with the 4.0 straight six.  Best car I've ever
>> had, I've driven the piss out of it for over 320,000 miles with very
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

My Jeep IS a Jeep, not like a Compass or even the current Wrangler with
it's minivan engine.

I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning
the corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go.

Jeff DeWitt
SnoMan - 02 Apr 2007 00:26 GMT
>My Jeep IS a Jeep, not like a Compass or even the current Wrangler with
>it's minivan engine.

I did not say your Jeep was not more Jeep than new ones. I have been
around Jeeps since late 50's and when AMC bought them in early 70's it
was the best thing that ever happen to Jeep in modern times because
they refined the drivetrain and gave the Jeep a more stable foundation
and under AMC the highly sucessfull mini Cherokee was born in 84
(there was a full sized one  that was discontinued in 83). AMC bulit
good sturdy motors that were never appreciated by many. Chyrsler is
running Jeep into the ground and the best thing that could happen to
Jeep today would be to get away from Chyrsler. Dated or not is was a
mistake to kill the sturdy proven Cherokee and replace it with the
Liberty. They should have kept Cherokee as a base entry vehicle and
bastardized the grand instead.

>I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning
>the corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go.

I do not think GM has learned anything yet really. Just look at a 2007
Chevy P/U as what appears to be a beefy bumper in front of each front
wheel is merely chome plated plastic that will fail with a mild impact
with anything much more than a emtpy paper bag when at speed (just
wait until they start busting them off in snow drifts. Rest assured
with each new model GM finds a way to built them cheaper because
labors costs is killing them. The new 6 speed auto (6L80) being used
in new HD P/U's with 6.0 takes about 65% less man hours (about 270
bucks less man hour wise)  to assemble because it modular design can
be assembled by a robot but the bad thing about this design and
assemble is that there is no "drive" gear in it (it has no 1 to 1
ratio that can be selected) because of the componud modular design and
it remains to be seen hhow this will pan out in tim is HD usage.(it is
either in a underdrive or overdrive mode with no direct drive possible
as it compounds/selects different planetaries to get its six speeds
with no direct main shaft availble for 1 to 1 drive) The sturdy Ally
and the new Toyota 6 speed auto still have a 1 to 1 drive ratio
availble.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
dh - 02 Apr 2007 01:46 GMT
>>> I've got a 96 Cherokee with the 4.0 straight six.  Best car I've ever
>>> had, I've driven the piss out of it for over 320,000 miles with very
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Jeff DeWitt

"Occupied Chrysler"

Oh, that's funny!  Good one!

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

C. E. White - 02 Apr 2007 19:50 GMT
> I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning the
> corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go.

Hmm, I though Fords were generally rated as being of higher quality than GM
products (except sometimes Buick and Cadillac).

Ed
owl - 03 Apr 2007 04:40 GMT
I would have to agree with you there.

I am agnostic to brand.  I just want the best possible induction offered
that makes sense.

This means for the same very reasons... I appreciate the Shelby Mustang with
5.4 L Engine putting out 500 hp
to Corvette's 7.0 L at 505 hp.

The Shelby has DOHC 4 valve construction.

So for the same reason I prefer my Tundra with a DOHC 32 valve centered
sparkplug over the F150.....

I also prefer the Shelby over the Corvette.

I am seriously considering ordering one, although I believe Ford should
offer DOHC 32 valve on the 4.6 as well.

> > I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning the
> > corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ed
Mike Hunter - 02 Apr 2007 00:02 GMT
Share of WHAT market?  Today GM sells more than twice what Toyota sells in
the US  In 1980 when GM sold nearly 50% of the vehicles the market was only
around 8,000,000 vehicles.  Today with GM at around 35% of the market, the
market is averaging between sixteen and eighteen million vehicles.  Today GM
sells more trucks alone than it did cars and trucks back then.   ;)

mike

\
> I buy quality not nationality and Toyota did not get to were they are
> today by
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Mike Marlow - 02 Apr 2007 19:43 GMT
> That Jeep is nor longer a Jeep as they are made today because the 4.0
> was AMC engine and well designed and sturdy not like the import
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> if you make a good product is sells itself without 5000 or 10000
> dollar clearance rebates.

I'm happy you like your new Toyota.  Really.  That's as it should be.
And... I agree that Detroit caused the mess they're in today, by themselves.
All of that said, I wouldn't lump the trucks in that same barrel.  Detroit
has built great trucks for decades.  Yeah - there have been problems and
there were things they should have been flogged for in some of their truck
designs, but Detroit does build good trucks.  Those of us who really use
pickups know that we can count on them.  Toyota has raised the bar now, but
that's the way things go.  It's always a leap frog game, and one vendor sets
the bar every few years that everyone else has to step up to or lose.
There's really nothing new about this.  Detroit will indeed step up to
Toyota's bar.  This is a game they are very familiar with.

As for the new Toyota... the jury is still out on this truck.  It's brand
new.  Let's see how well the truck holds up.  I'm sure based on Toyota's
performance in the past, that they will do whatever they must to make this
thing a success for them, but I'm equally sure they will have to do exactly
that.

Signature

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

SnoMan - 02 Apr 2007 20:37 GMT
> Detroit does build good trucks.  Those of us who really use
>pickups know that we can count on them.

I would not say that as you have little choice in the matter but that
will change soon. I do not call a new chevy truck with a large piece
of chromed plastic in front of each front wheel that give the illusion
of tuffness a good truck. I look for a lot of them to break. Same with
large headlight assembley that is going to cost a fourtune to replace.
I guess i am old fashioned because I believe trucks should be sturdy
and have real metal bumpers and headlight assemblies that are
reasonable to replace if damaged. 99 was the last general production
GM truck that actually had a full front bumber made from steel. With
silverado they reduced the size and thickness of it and with 07 they
removed even more metal. The front bumber on a new chevy truck is a
joke at best. (and a very poor joke too) GM has kinda forgot what a
truck should be and has been too focused on making them more car than
truck. They have been doing this to get around crash. emission and MPG
standards because 8600 GVW and bigger trucks have different emisson
and no MPG standards so they make them more car like to get more to
buy them. In the 70's to 80's it was the van craze and them late 90's
to recently it has been the SUV craze but its days are numbered but GM
has not figured that out yet. They are even converteing the saturn
line from cheap econoboxes to high dollar SUV's as a focus.  
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
80 Knight - 01 Apr 2007 16:10 GMT
>>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> (actually I want a new Studebaker!).

You couldn't possibly pay me enough to own a Toyota car or truck. I've never
liked them.  As for my truck of choice, I would take the Silverado. Then
again, seeing how we build them, I may be biased ;-)
Noon-Air - 01 Apr 2007 17:03 GMT
>>>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> never liked them.  As for my truck of choice, I would take the Silverado.
> Then again, seeing how we build them, I may be biased ;-)

then why are you crossposting this crap to the Toyota news groups??? other
than to toll

killfile bait
80 Knight - 01 Apr 2007 20:28 GMT
>>>>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>>>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> killfile bait

I didn't start the thread, I just commented on it.
Mike Hunter - 01 Apr 2007 22:42 GMT
Actually it is Chevy that make trucks in Mexico.  Ford makes 87% of the
trucks it sells in the US, in the US of 90% US parts.  The balance are made
over across the Detroit River in Canada of 90% US parts.

mike

>>>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins
>>>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Jeff DeWitt
Jonathan - 12 Apr 2007 05:58 GMT
> Actually it is Chevy that make trucks in Mexico.  Ford makes 87% of the
> trucks it sells in the US, in the US of 90% US parts.  The balance are
> made over across the Detroit River in Canada of 90% US parts.
>
> mike

Greetings,

Sorry, but my Silverado is made in Indiana.  And I've been in, under, around
and through it and can't find much that is made in Mexico at all.  Most of
the parts that I can find with labels are US and Canadian.  While GM does
have some production and assembly in Mexico, it's not all or even most of
what they build and sell.  I'm sure someone here is resourceful enough to
find out exactly how many are made in the US, Canada and Mexico as either a
percentage of total production or overall numbers.

Cheers - Jonathan
Mike Hunter - 01 Apr 2007 22:36 GMT
You are kidding, right?  Actual truck sales in the month of January by both
GM and Ford 2007 models, already have past Toyotas total projected ANNUAL
2007 truck sales.   LOL

mike

"jcr" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

> Based on this, it appears that Toyota has upped the ante considerably with
> the "bread-and-butter" segment of product that the US manufacturers count
> on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
Sir F. A. Rien - 02 Apr 2007 00:38 GMT
He didn't say they would out sell the old boys, he said "Toyota has upped
the ante considerably ..." which means that buyers have more/better choices
and it -=may=- (by implication) impact Fud and Gimmiee sales.

>You are kidding, right?  Actual truck sales in the month of January by both
>GM and Ford 2007 models, already have past Toyotas total projected ANNUAL
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> the "bread-and-butter" segment of product that the US manufacturers count
>> on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
jcr - 02 Apr 2007 02:47 GMT
> He didn't say they would out sell the old boys, he said "Toyota has upped
> the ante considerably ..." which means that buyers have more/better choices
> and it -=may=- (by implication) impact Fud and Gimmiee sales.

Mike has reading comprehension problems on occasion.
Mike Hunter - 02 Apr 2007 03:14 GMT
Toyota up the anti for its own trucks, only.  GM Ford and Dodge have been
building trucks as good of better than Toyota is now just starting to build,
that is a fact.   Toyota pricing will not hurt Toyota not the domestics

mike

> He didn't say they would out sell the old boys, he said "Toyota has upped
> the ante considerably ..." which means that buyers have more/better
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>> count
>>> on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
Norm De Plume - 02 Apr 2007 03:22 GMT
> Toyota up the anti for its own trucks, only.  GM Ford and Dodge have been
> building trucks as good of better than Toyota is now just starting to build,
> that is a fact.

You forgot to say "In my opinion."
Sir F. A. Rien - 02 Apr 2007 15:26 GMT
>> Toyota up the anti for its own trucks, only.  GM Ford and Dodge have been
>> building trucks as good of better than Toyota is now just starting to build,
>> that is a fact.
>
>You forgot to say "In my opinion."

doGs don't have 'opinions' they state "Facts" ... <G>
Sir F. A. Rien - 02 Apr 2007 15:25 GMT
Believe what you want, keep your head in the sand, hide behine mummy's
skirts ... whatever !!!

I've owned detroit 'iron' and my Toyota beat the hades out of all Ford &
GM's I've had !!!

>Toyota up the anti for its own trucks, only.  GM Ford and Dodge have been
>building trucks as good of better than Toyota is now just starting to build,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>>> count
>>>> on so much.  When will the US catch up?!  <sigh>
PerfectReign - 31 Mar 2007 17:18 GMT
>>My Avalanche is mid-size, has available 4WD, closed bed if needed,
>>seating for six, gets roughly 18 mixed, has 310HP (at the flywheel), and
>>seems to handle curves well.  :P
>
> I drove a new trudra today with a 5.7 and trailer tow package with 4.30
> gears and that truck is POWERFULL!!!

I've read about it.  I'd like to take one out.

I've heard - too - that they made it with a 3/4 ton in mind so they can
possibly put a larger engine or even a diesel in the bay.

Can't wait for the diesel.

Signature

kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

closing the doors that surround me
so no one will ever penetrate
complete my retreat just to wait for the day
that never comes so i will laugh alone

javascript - 31 Mar 2007 17:56 GMT
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:05:22 +0000, a rock fell the sky, hitting SnoDip on
> the head, and inspiring the following:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Can't wait for the diesel.

Yeah these babies get a nice premium tacked onto the labor. If they keep
it up they're going to hit a 150 buck labor rate.
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:27 GMT
Among the vehicles you try, drive and get a total drive home price on a Ford
Edge, then decide, WBMA

mike

.

> I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo capacity
> (an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and handles
> curves real well - under $40K.
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:14 GMT
You have got to be kidding you were the only one racing.  A Ferrari, any
Ferrari will do corners at speeds your truck can not even attain.   LOL

mike

>> Actually, not all Ferraris are that fast off the line.  Many are geared
>> to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> that at all) - I think I just knew the road better and have enough to stay
> up with him - but it was funny watching him try.
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:08 GMT
You obviously have never driven a Ferrari, right?

I drive a 2007 Mustang GT convertible and I leave lots of cars behind, that
want to run me, in a block or even LESS

mike

>>>Have you ever driven a Dakota with the v8 magnum engine?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Stephen N.--->and his daddy would have killed him if he'd crashed the
> Ferrari...
Stephen N. - 31 Mar 2007 02:06 GMT
> You obviously have never driven a Ferrari, right?
>
> I drive a 2007 Mustang GT convertible and I leave lots of cars behind, that
> want to run me, in a block or even LESS

Oh hell no!  You honestly think I would have returned if someone let me
take off in a Ferrari?  I'd still be gone!  :)  That's a nice little
ragtop you have though.

I have owned and/or driven more than a few fast cars and bikes and I'm
not trying to make it sound like I think trucks are faster than
Ferraris.  But a 13 second Ford Pickup is as fast as a 13 second
Ferrari, at least for that 13 seconds.  Also I know there are some
freaky fast STOCK Ferraris, faster than the one I listed here.  Just for
comparisons sake though, here are a few (not so random) numbers.

2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500  Convertible 4.5 12.9 (R&T Jan '06)
2005 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti 4.6 12.8 (R&T Sept '05)
2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 5.2 13.9 (no refernce given)

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html
0-60 and 1/4 mile times for Factory Stock Vehicles

Looks like that particular Ferrari would have been breathing pretty hard
to leave you behind and he would really have had to want to prove the
point.  And just for interest, some fast F150 times from 9's to 13's
from a website:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford--F150-Lightning-Drag-Racing.html

Ever had a fast car that wasn't quite running right but you still
thought you could beat down that little puke beside you?  Now that is
even more of a piss off.  A few misfires and that frickin' guy in the
Lightning is walking past your 'Stang!

Coulda happened.

Stephen N.--->ain't it all hella lotta fun though...
Leythos - 31 Mar 2007 20:50 GMT
> I drive a 2007 Mustang GT convertible and I leave lots of cars behind,
> that want to run me, in a block or even LESS

Well, I have the Dakota no more - I traded it in last night for a Toyota
4Runner limited - night and day difference in the ride, comfort, toys and
ability to get up and go (meaning the truck had a lot more get up and do).
One of the good things is that in 4D mode I get about 22.9mpg vs the 12mpg
I got with the Dakota.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:00 GMT
Yes but I have also driven a Ferrari.   ;)

mike

>> Like I said you THOUGHT you were in a race  LOL
>
> You must have missed my initial post where I say it could have been
> because the chap didn't know how to handle the vehicle....
>
> Have you ever driven a Dakota with the v8 magnum engine?
Mike Hunter - 29 Mar 2007 23:11 GMT
You did not listen to what was being compared. That comparison was between
three vehicles that have around the SAME MSRP.  The AWD Fusion actually cost
less than the other FWD cars in the test.

mike

>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
>> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford
>> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD
>> Accord.  I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested a
>> FWD Fusion.

>> Larry
jcr - 31 Mar 2007 02:59 GMT
>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> :P

And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.
PerfectReign - 31 Mar 2007 17:16 GMT
>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife
>> yesterday. She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
> And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.

Yeah, I figure if I put a few "powered by honda" and some other various
kanji stickers on the car, lower it, add a big loud exhaust and put some
LED lights on it, I can make it faster.

In any case, I find it funny. I have an American-made car with a Japanese
engine and a Mexican-made truck with an American engine.

Go figure.

What I'd really like is either a FJ-40 with a Cummins engine or a '96-'99
Suburban with a 6.5TD.

Signature

kai

Free Compean and Ramos
http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp
http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46

Kevin - 31 Mar 2007 17:31 GMT
You want an electronic 6.5 TD???? Better get a box of FSDs and a couple
injection pumps in the deal. Best 6.5 is mechanical TD, about 94.

>>> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of  - my wife
>>> yesterday. She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> What I'd really like is either a FJ-40 with a Cummins engine or a '96-'99
> Suburban with a 6.5TD.
PerfectReign - 31 Mar 2007 19:11 GMT
> You want an electronic 6.5 TD???? Better get a box of FSDs and a couple
> injection pumps in the deal. Best 6.5 is mechanical TD, about 94.

Really?

I've been reading that there were issues with the '96 model injectors and
some cooling issues with the block but that by '98/'99 they'd all been
worked out.

Right now, I'm just browsing and would love an LLY or an LBZ but I know
they didn't do such things and have no intention of a major swap. Besides
I like the < 2000 body style.

Signature

k

Kevin - 01 Apr 2007 00:45 GMT
There's a pile of problems with the pumps and drivers on those engines. 3
pump revisions later, we're still changing a pile of parts.

LLY and LBZ engines are solid if you keep clean fuel filters on them. If you
don't, you're buying injectors, and they're kinds pricey!

>> You want an electronic 6.5 TD???? Better get a box of FSDs and a couple
>> injection pumps in the deal. Best 6.5 is mechanical TD, about 94.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> they didn't do such things and have no intention of a major swap. Besides
> I like the < 2000 body style.
PerfectReign - 01 Apr 2007 01:13 GMT
> There's a pile of problems with the pumps and drivers on those engines.
> 3 pump revisions later, we're still changing a pile of parts.

You referring to the 6.5?  I thought they were fairly rock solid.

> LLY and LBZ engines are solid if you keep clean fuel filters on them. If
> you don't, you're buying injectors, and they're kinds pricey!

Yeah, been there / done that!  (I had a '95 Jimmy with the SFI 4.3
Vortec.)

Signature

k

Jonathan - 12 Apr 2007 06:08 GMT
> You want an electronic 6.5 TD???? Better get a box of FSDs and a couple
> injection pumps in the deal. Best 6.5 is mechanical TD, about 94.

Not so.  An FSD cooler eliminates the FSD failure issue and the post-'97
high flow water pump with dual thermostats and crossover takes care of the
head gasket burn-through issues on the rear cylinders.  The problem at this
point is not a mechanical or reliability issue anymore, it's the fact that
the 6.5 has indirect injection, isn't intercooled, and has only two valves
per cylinder.  In the end it was cheaper and easier to design an entirely
new motor (the Duramax) that it was to redesign the 6.5.

Cheers - Jonathan
PerfectReign - 16 Apr 2007 04:05 GMT
>> You want an electronic 6.5 TD???? Better get a box of FSDs and a couple
>> injection pumps in the deal. Best 6.5 is mechanical TD, about 94.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> design an entirely new motor (the Duramax) that it was to redesign the
> 6.5.

...now if only they put the DMAX into the Suburban.

I'd like a midsize diesel SUV like that.

Signature

k

Jonathan - 12 Apr 2007 06:02 GMT
> And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.

From what I've read, Honda did a corporate trade with GM - the V6 in the
Saturns in exchange for Duramax diesels for the overseas market.

Cheers - Jonathan
Ed White - 12 Apr 2007 13:38 GMT
> > And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.
>
> From what I've read, Honda did a corporate trade with GM - the V6 in the
> Saturns in exchange for Duramax diesels for the overseas market.
>
> Cheers - Jonathan

It wasn't the Duramax that Honda gets, it is a Opel four cylinder
diesel for use in European Hondas. Diesels are over 50% of the car
market in Europe.

Ed
Ray O - 12 Apr 2007 21:04 GMT
>> > And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Ed

I was wondering how Honda would fit a Duramax into one of their cars!
Signature


Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

PerfectReign - 16 Apr 2007 04:04 GMT
>>> > And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
> I was wondering how Honda would fit a Duramax into one of their cars!

I know a Ridgeline will fit into an Avalanche....

http://donutmonster.com/stuff/z71_avy_ridgeline.jpg

Signature

kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

closing the doors that surround me
so no one will ever penetrate
complete my retreat just to wait for the day
that never comes so i will laugh alone

Dave - 30 Mar 2007 13:28 GMT
> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a FWD Fusion.
> Larry

That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same
ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison.
Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 13:39 GMT
>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same
> ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison.

Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing
performance.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Dave - 30 Mar 2007 14:00 GMT
>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing
> performance.

But it DOES when buying a vehicle!
Leythos - 30 Mar 2007 14:09 GMT
>>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> But it DOES when buying a vehicle!

Not really. I've been looking at new SUV's to replace my Dakota Quad 4x4
V8 and have found that the 4Runner, Highlander, FJ, etc... all have around
the same price at the high end, but they have vastly different performance
specs.

Cost is not a good indicator of performance.

If the vehicles tested are being tested to show performance, then they
should be of very close specs, cost would not be part of the equation.
After the performance stats were show they could list the cost of each,
but my guess is that their car would be higher priced than what they
competed against or they would have bragged about it.

Signature

Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:22 GMT
As any salesman and he will tell you the last question a customer asks
before signing on the dotted line is; "How much is my monthly payment?"  ;)

mike

>>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> But it DOES when buying a vehicle!
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:17 GMT
If that is the case I will run your truck with my friends Ferrari Testa
Rosa.  LOL

mike

>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing
> performance.
C. E. White - 30 Mar 2007 13:40 GMT
> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find
> it
> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.

That's fine. I just think they deliberatly constructed the commercial
to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional brakes. Instead of
running a 0-60-0 comparison, they could have run a straigth 0-60
and/or 60-0 comparison. But if they had done that, only the 0-60 would
have been exceptional. By doing the commercial as shown, they were
trying to make people think the brakes were really good - when they
aren't anything special.

> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford
> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD
> Accord.  I wonder what the results would have been if they had
> tested
> a FWD Fusion.
> Larry

I test drove both an AWD and a FWD Fusion and honestly couldn't tell
much difference. But I didn't run one through a slalom course. I got
the AWD one anyhow. You can't get an AWD Camry or Accord. I don't know
how the 4 cylinder FWD Fusion would have compared to the Accord or
Camry. According to the Consumer Reports road tests, a 4 cylinder
Fusion (well actually the Mercury version) accelerated as fast a 4
cylinder Camry, and the FWD version handled the same as the AWD
version.

The Ford V-6 is plenty strong and the interior is very nice. A FWD
Camry equipped like my AWD Fusion would have been at least $3000 more,
plus I would have had to deal with the lousy Toyota dealers in my
area.

Ed
Mike Hunter - 31 Mar 2007 00:20 GMT
The MSRP may have been $3,000 more but you can bet the farm it would have
cost you at least $5,000 more to drive the Camry home   ;)

mike

> I test drove both an AWD and a FWD Fusion and honestly couldn't tell much
> difference. But I didn't run one through a slalom course. I got the AWD
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Ed
jcr - 31 Mar 2007 02:56 GMT
> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Ed

I'd be very surprised if Toyota's "fastest" truck would out-accelerate
the V-10 engines that Ford and Dodge produce.
Will - 31 Mar 2007 15:41 GMT
> I'd be very surprised if Toyota's "fastest" truck would out-accelerate
> the V-10 engines that Ford and Dodge produce.

The Ford V10 is one of the most apathetic engines in any truck out
there.  They're also atrociously unreliable, but that's a troll for
another thread.
C. E. White - 02 Apr 2007 13:10 GMT
> I'd be very surprised if Toyota's "fastest" truck would
> out-accelerate the V-10 engines that Ford and Dodge produce.

Ford doesn't offer the V-10 in a F150. But the V-10 is really a truck
engine, so I doubt it would be as fast as the Tundra 5.7L V-8. I don't
know much about the Dodge V-10, but again unless you are talking about
the Viper V-10, the Dodge V-10 is a truck engine. No one building
serious work trucks would tune their engine to for drag racing. Ford,
Chevrolet, and Dodge have all built silly trucks set up to go fast in
a straight line (like the Ford Lightning), but only Toyota seems to
think anyone takes drag trucks seriously as work trucks. A 2004 Ford
Lightning would do 0-60 in 5.2 sec (or less) and stop from 60 in 162
feet. Of course it was not a real work truck, but it sure would look
good in that silly Tundra 0-60-0 ad.....

Ed
owl - 01 Apr 2007 01:57 GMT
> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Ed

When I buy a new vehicle I place priority in the engineering behind the
engine.

The engine is used to a greater extent of it's fullest potential more than
any other part of the truck.

This means I prefer engine design consistent with 2007 instead of 1957.

I want engines that produce high power and torque for their displacement,
while their fuel consumption and emissions stay low.
I don't care who produces these cars I will buy them.
I seem to remember Ford himself talking about how they had to make a new
focus on fuel economy technology.
Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ?

There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.

I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake rotors.

Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?

http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224
C. E. White - 01 Apr 2007 04:15 GMT
>> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
>> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> focus on fuel economy technology.
> Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ?

They are getting 300 hp from 4.6L. Isn't that good enough?  They have 4
valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their horsepower
targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost?

> There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.

There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it foolish to
say you won't consider a pushrod engine.  Most current Ford engines are
overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6 truck
engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It is hard
to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and horsepoer per
cubic inch of space occupied under the hood.

> I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake
> rotors.

And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers work
significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had cars
with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite Toyota's hype,
their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So what is
the advantage?

> Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
>
> http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224

Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles" were 97 and
98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket problems do
some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure -

http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html
http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1
http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm

Ed
owl - 02 Apr 2007 01:06 GMT
> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their horsepower
> targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost?

4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use.  That is unless you
don't think the consumer deserves it.
Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication of a
lower red line ?

The  4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve.

The mustang engines are still pushrod design.

Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ?  How about variable valve timing ?

> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and horsepoer per
> cubic inch of space occupied under the hood.

OH ?
Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve  OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm
Tundra   V8  5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm
Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm

Similar numbers out of less displacement.  This would suggest the Corvette
would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design.

According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
lifters hence not DOHC.
So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.

> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake
> > rotors.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So what is
> the advantage?

That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and
responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area without
having to float the caliper.

It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area.

I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2.

> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1
> http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm
>
> Ed

Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket recalls.
What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
David M - 02 Apr 2007 01:46 GMT
> According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
> lifters hence not DOHC.
> So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.

Wrong.  The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine.  

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 2:26 1 user

owl - 02 Apr 2007 02:37 GMT
> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
> > lifters hence not DOHC.
> > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.
>
> Wrong.  The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine.

Yeah ?
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp

says for the 5.4 L  valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers
Ray O - 02 Apr 2007 02:45 GMT
>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
>> > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> says for the 5.4 L  valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers

According the info from the link provided above, the 4.0 L has a single
overhead cam, the 4.6 L has overhead valves (pushrods) and the 5.4 L has
double overhead cam.

It is possible for an overhead cam engine to use hydraulic lifters.
Signature


Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Kevin - 02 Apr 2007 03:03 GMT
>>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
>>> > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It is possible for an overhead cam engine to use hydraulic lifters.

Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all do.
4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC
engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting, which
makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft.
Noon-Air - 02 Apr 2007 03:58 GMT
> Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all do.

Care to make a correction on that statement??

> 4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC
> engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting,
> which makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft.

The direct acting method is the cam lobes directly contact cups on the end
of each valve stem and are adjusted with shims under the cup for correct
lash and clearance. Ref the 1600cc lotus twin cam, big valve engine. They
also had a 4 valve per cylinder engine but it didn't make the horsepower or
torque the big valve engine did. They were 125hp out of the box and when
correctly massaged, they made 235hp(Formula B engine), with some very high
revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to boot.
Kevin - 02 Apr 2007 07:37 GMT
I know how direct actings work, give me a current example of a non hydraulic
lifter engine. I've rebuilt several, and haven't shimmed one.

>> Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all
>> do.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> when correctly massaged, they made 235hp(Formula B engine), with some very
> high revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to boot.
Noon-Air - 02 Apr 2007 13:50 GMT
I haven't kept up with the new engines, and quit building engines and racing
in the mid to late 80s
FWIW, the Ford 2.8 V6 was a solid lifter, pushrod engine with a gear drive
cam

>I know how direct actings work, give me a current example of a non
>hydraulic lifter engine. I've rebuilt several, and haven't shimmed one.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>> with some very high revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to
>> boot.
David M - 02 Apr 2007 10:21 GMT
>>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
>>> > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It is possible for an overhead cam engine to use hydraulic lifters.

Of course.  It's obvious that neither you nor Mr. Owl know anything about
engines.  I don't care what they have on their web site, the 4.6L and 5.4L
V8s are *overhead cam* engines.  Always have been.  

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 11:02 1 user

aarcuda69062 - 02 Apr 2007 04:06 GMT
> > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
> > > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> says for the 5.4 L  valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers

Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid?

How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an
overhead cam engine?

Do you even know what a camshaft does?
owl - 02 Apr 2007 08:17 GMT
> > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
> > > > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid?

I'm just used to DOHC meaning no rockers and no lifters.
I have always associated lifters with pushrods.

Does condesention make your point better, or are you trying to win an award
for something else ?

> How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an
> overhead cam engine?

I think a better question is how does a DOHC valvetrain have lifters in the
traditional sense.  They are not lifters they are cups and shims.

I've been looking all over the site, I guess to get the spark plug in the
middle, and DOHC you have to get the Shelby.

> Do you even know what a camshaft does?
Kevin - 02 Apr 2007 12:56 GMT
DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft placement
and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and 4 valve engines
that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I don't
understand, if I were you

>> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to
> form:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>> Do you even know what a camshaft does?
owl - 02 Apr 2007 14:13 GMT
> DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft placement
> and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and 4 valve engines
> that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I don't
> understand, if I were you

I wouldn't be pretentious about my understanding if I were you.

My mistake came from reading Ford's erroneous web page.
It's right there on the 4.6 L 24V V8 for the Mustang GT model.  Clearly says
OHV.

If you want to get on a highhorse about understanding, go make your gripes
to those responsible for the error on the web page.

> >> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to
> > form:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> >
> >> Do you even know what a camshaft does?
Mike Hunter - 03 Apr 2007 00:22 GMT
Too make things clear to the ignorant or the misinformed, Ford makes several
V6 engines that are DOUBLE OHC engines, with a total of four chain driven
overhead cams.  Each cam activates two valves per cylinder.

From day one the modular Fords V8s have been SINGLE OHC engines, with a
total of two chain driven cams.  Currently the single cam per head activates
three vales per cylinder rather than two.  Three valves per cylinder layout
is far more efficient and provides as much HP as four valves, but at a much
lower RPM.  Therefore with much higher torque, at a far more desirable RPM.
The end result is it provides better overall performance in a sporty RWD
vehicle like the Mustang and a much stronger engine for a work truck, than a
four cam engine.

All of Fords DOHC V6 and SOHC V8 engines are sequentially port injected,
with individual cylinder coils and have been since the mid nineties. Most
newer models are
fly-by-wire, as well, for better emissions and fuel economy.  Some of Fords
V8s in the less performance type of car, like the CV/GM, still have the two
valve SOHC heads and around 80 fewer horses.

mike

>> I've been looking all over the site, I guess to get the spark plug in the
>> middle, and DOHC you have to get the Shelby.
>>
>>> Do you even know what a camshaft does?
David M - 02 Apr 2007 10:15 GMT
>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
>> > lifters hence not DOHC.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> says for the 5.4 L  valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers

So what?  That doesn't make it a pushrod engine.  The Ford modular V8
(4.6L and 5.4L) is an overhead cam engine.  I have a 4.6L V8, so don't
tell me what you think you know.  

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 10:56 1 user

Kevin - 02 Apr 2007 02:55 GMT
>> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
>> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
> Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ?  How about variable valve timing
> ?

You should research before you spout. 4.6L, 5.4L, and 6.8L are all OHC, not
pushrod. Lincoln Navigator has used four valve heads for almost 10 years.
Mustang V8s are also OHC. Check it out.

>> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket recalls.
> What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
owl - 02 Apr 2007 08:51 GMT
> >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> pushrod. Lincoln Navigator has used four valve heads for almost 10 years.
> Mustang V8s are also OHC. Check it out.

You should check out the Ford Web site before you spew.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/

I was looking at the GT model.

The 4.6 says OHV right on it.   However, clicking on the link and spawning
the child window..
The engine is a SOHC.  Looks like Ford has an ERROR right on their website.
I guess their mistake on their new product sales collateral was
misinformation.

The starting context of this entire thread was in reference to the F150 4.2
versus the Tundra 4.0
both V6 engines.

The F150 4.2 v6 is a OHV design.

> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> >> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
> >> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
> >> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1

http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm

> >> Ed
> >
> > Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket recalls.
> > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
Kevin - 02 Apr 2007 13:07 GMT
>> >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
>> >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all
[quoted text clipped - 127 lines]
>
> The F150 4.2 v6 is a OHV design.

And you, sir, should understand engine construction before inserting your
foot in your mouth. Referring to a 4.6L as an OHV is not an error. OHV means
overhead valve, which is exactly how it is built. There's nothing wrong with
pushrods engines, especially in low RPM applications like trucks. If Ford
and Chev are competetive with pushrods engines and 3 valve engines, who
should worry? Maybe Toyota if they make a 4 valve?  If they have to go to
added engineering and construction expense to stay competetive, who's the
dumb one.

>> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
> recalls.
>> > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
owl - 02 Apr 2007 14:52 GMT
> >> >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> >> >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> foot in your mouth. Referring to a 4.6L as an OHV is not an error. OHV means
> overhead valve, which is exactly how it is built.

It is an error on the page and to most people OHV means it is NOT SOHC
period.
I made a snapshot of Ford's errored page.  Do I need to attach it.
Click on the link for the Mustang GT's 4.6L OHV 24V V8 link you get a child
page that says
4.6L SOHC.

Don't try to Tell me OHV = SOHC or DOHC.  This has never been the case.

> There's nothing wrong with
> pushrods engines, especially in low RPM applications like trucks. If Ford
> and Chev are competetive with pushrods engines and 3 valve engines, who
> should worry? Maybe Toyota if they make a 4 valve?  If they have to go to
> added engineering and construction expense to stay competetive, who's the
> dumb one.

The one who isn't acknowledging the history of Toyota engines that get more
power and torque out of less displacement.

Construction expense is the CEO's greater wages versus your right as a
consumer to get technology in the year 2007 for the money you pay.

You keep trying to suggest I don't know.  I have worked on dirtbikes.  There
is no secret who is solving the power per weight and displacement in that
market.  My 1979 xr500 is a SOHC 4 valve.  My 1983 xr500 is RFVC, Radial
Four Valve construction.  The valves go in radialy to the head to maximize
the valves size in the head.

Pushrod engines have more reciprocating weight.  This will always be a grave
liability to engine performance simply because of physics.  Does your
rhetoric undermine or replace physics ?

> >> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> >> >> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
> >> >> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
> >> >> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1

http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm

> >> >> Ed
> >> >
> >> > Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket
> > recalls.
> >> > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
C. E. White - 02 Apr 2007 16:01 GMT
> It is an error on the page and to most people OHV means it is NOT
> SOHC
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Don't try to Tell me OHV = SOHC or DOHC.  This has never been the
> case.

Clearly, the Ford web page author made a mistake. However , OHV = over
head valves and you don't have to have push rods to have over head
valves. So while the usage is misleading, it is not false. The 4.6L
V-8 most definitely has a over head valves. It also has a single
overhead camshaft. So while it is an SOHC engine, it is also a OHV
engine.

> The one who isn't acknowledging the history of Toyota engines that
> get more
> power and torque out of less displacement.

Especially when you measure the horsepower with special intakes and
exhaust...

http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/inthenews/03-13-06.html
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?section=Pickup&story=universal
HP2006&subject=stories&referer=&year=New

http://www.cars.com/go/news/Story.jsp?section=news&subject=recent&story=031306st
oryaDN&referer=&aff=sacbee


> Pushrod engines have more reciprocating weight.

Not true. You might be able to claim that push rod valve trains have
more reciprocating mass, but not necessarily the whole engine (and
even then you might be on shaky ground). You should check out NASCAR
push rod engines (even the Toyota NASCAR V-8). They spin those 6 liter
V-8s to over 10,000 rpm with push rods. If valve train reciprocating
mass was the main deterring factor in engine performance, race cars
would all be running flat head engines.

> This will always be a grave
> liability to engine performance simply because of physics.  Does
> your
> rhetoric undermine or replace physics ?

Does yours?

People get fixated on maximum horsepower numbers. What I want is a car
that drives properly. I've had 240 HP cars that were a pain to drive
in traffic, and 140 HP cars that were a joy to drive in traffic. The
V-6 Camry I test droive a was a POS. If you floored it, it accelerated
briskly, but in around town driving it was hopeless. Unresponsive, the
transmission constantly hunted for the right gear, and unless you
floored it, it lagged like heck. My SO's 4 cylinder automatic
transmission RAV4 drove much better in traffic. Toyota can publish all
the big numbers they want for horsepower, but if it drives like a POS,
it is a POS.

Ed
Mike Hunter - 03 Apr 2007 01:29 GMT
That is a common fault among manufactures who want to advertise high HP, but
must spin their engines at high RPMs to attain that HP..  Torque is what
gets you doing and keep you at speed on the grades.  High winding engines
develop their torque at too low an RPM.  That is fine for an engine driving
a manual tranny with lots of gears that take less HP
to run than an automatic tranny.  With a high winder engine one must rely on
the torque converter and longer times in lower gears to get the lower end HP
to the wheels.

If you thought the V6 was a dog, you would never want to drive a Camry in
hilly country
that has the four.  The V6 does a better job than their underpowered 4cy,
for a car that size.  Lack of torque at the proper RPM becomes evident when
one hits a grade, more so than when starting out, because the gearing and
the torque converter does the job.  At speed, if the driver does not floor
the throttle soon enough to keep up the RPMs, the lack of torque will always
leave him falling behind the pack.

Truck drivers call Camry drivers 'flatlanders.'   People that live in flat
country, that get in the trucks way on the grades, because the driver does
not to know how to drive when they get in hilly country   ;)

mike

> People get fixated on maximum horsepower numbers. What I want is a car
> that drives properly. I've had 240 HP cars that were a pain to drive in
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Ed
scott - 15 Apr 2007 20:43 GMT
> That is a common fault among manufactures who want to advertise high HP, but
> must spin their engines at high RPMs to attain that HP..  Torque is what
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> mike

I sold my '00 Maxima 5 speed b/c it had such pitiful torque at low
revs.  Compared to other manuals I've owned (and I've only nearly all
manuals until recently) it was dog to drive and it was very easy to
kill the motor. Wife and I both killed the motor from stop more than
any car we ever drove.  It would go like stink if you drove it like
you were mad at it and revved it way up, and up hills ok, b/c the
gearing was keeping the motor about 3k rpms, but fuel economy was not
stellar.  What did we replace it with?  Sit down for this one, a '00
Olds Intrigue with the 3.5 DOHC (that was a painful discussion to a
few uninformed and stubborns wasn't it?).  The Olds 3.5 auto motor
goes up hills like they are not even there!  And I have yet to have it
kick down a gear on a hill, and at moderate highway speeds 60-65 I got
33 - 32 mpg.  Who needs a Camry?  Oh yea, resale value.  So I got my
Olds for dirt cheap b/c of poor resale, poor me.

That torquey, smooth and rev happy 3.5 motor would have been DYNAMITE
in the minivan and small truck, SUVs.  Of course GM developed it for
"Olds" only and then "discovered" it cost too much to produce.  That
my friends is pitiful project management and a waste of money.  How
many engines has GM designed and then dropped?  (the Dual Twin Cam v6,
Quad 4, 2.8, etc).  Now they have the 3.6 DOHC, but its 7 years later
and maybe too late.

D
HLS@nospam.nix - 17 Apr 2007 19:58 GMT
"scott" <scott.snowboard@gmail.com> wrote in message
 > How many engines has GM designed and then dropped?  (the Dual Twin Cam
v6,
> Quad 4, 2.8, etc).  Now they have the 3.6 DOHC, but its 7 years later
> and maybe too late.

GM seems to have a hard time developing a game plan which will renew their
credibility.  "Chasing rabbits", we might call it.

No doubt that GM could put out a stellar product line that people would
want.

They just have a lot of problems to solve.
Mike Hunter - 17 Apr 2007 20:45 GMT
They must be selling something that buyer want to buy.  GM is still number
one in sales in the US.  Millions more than any import.   LOL

mike

> "scott" <scott.snowboard@gmail.com> wrote in message
>  > How many engines has GM designed and then dropped?  (the Dual Twin Cam
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> They just have a lot of problems to solve.
Edwin Pawlowski - 18 Apr 2007 01:50 GMT
> They must be selling something that buyer want to buy.  GM is still number
> one in sales in the US.  Millions more than any import.   LOL
>
> mike

That may be true, but they can't seem to make money selling them.
Mike Hunter - 18 Apr 2007 15:59 GMT
However the statement, that GM is not offering vehicle that buyer want to
buy, is obviously not true based on its sales figure vis a v all other
manufactures, foreign or domestic

Don't confuse profit with cost.  GM makes a profit on every vehicle it
sells, simply not enough to meet the current cost of doing business.  It is
costing GM billion to introduce all of it newest, and planed, vehicles.  GM
did make a profit in the fourth quarter and likely will in the first quarter
as well.   ;)

mike

>> They must be selling something that buyer want to buy.  GM is still
>> number one in sales in the US.  Millions more than any import.   LOL
>>
>> mike
>
> That may be true, but they can't seem to make money selling them.
Gosi - 19 Apr 2007 11:38 GMT
Don't confuse wages with cost.

I get wages every month
, simply not enough to meet the current cost of running the
household.
It is
costing me a lot to introduce my youngest wife to the pleasures of
life.

I did make a good profit in the fourth quarter but my wife just spent
a little more ;)

> However the statement, that GM is not offering vehicle that buyer want to
> buy, is obviously not true based on its sales figure vis a v all other
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> mike

> >> They must be selling something that buyer want to buy.  GM is still
> >> number one in sales in the US.  Millions more than any import.   LOL
>
> >> mike
>
> > That may be true, but they can't seem to make money selling them.
Mike Hunter - 19 Apr 2007 13:06 GMT
Duh, when manufacturing a vehicle, labor costs are part of the build cost.
What you are taking about are the maintenance cost of the 'product' you
purchased.  On might suggest you bought more 'product' than you income can
'maintain.'   LOL

mike

> Don't confuse wages with cost.
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
>> > That may be true, but they can't seem to make money selling them.
DH - 19 Apr 2007 14:55 GMT
> However the statement, that GM is not offering vehicle that buyer want to
> buy, is obviously not true based on its sales figure vis a v all other
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> mike

Only a simpleton reckons profit in terms of "marginal cost to produce this
vehicle".  At present, GM is having trouble selling its vehicles PROFITABLY.
They are not a low-cost manufacturer and they need high selling prices to
stay alive.  You've pointed out in the past, GM (and Ford) vehicles can be
obtained for less cash than Toyota and Honda vehicles.  But it doesn't cost
GM (or Ford) less to build a car.

The market's judgement is that GM vehicles are not competitive with Toyota's
vehicles, which is why they sell for so much less.

>>> They must be selling something that buyer want to buy.  GM is still
>>> number one in sales in the US.  Millions more than any import.   LOL
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> That may be true, but they can't seem to make money selling them.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Hunter - 19 Apr 2007 20:07 GMT
That may be your opinion and one is free to believe whatever they choose,
and spend their money wherever they wish, but that does not change the fact
more buyer continue to choose GM over any import brand.  GM still sells more
cars and far more trucks than does any Japanese manufacturer.  The fact is,
while it does cost more for the domestics to build vehicles in the US,
because they pays higher wages, offers far better benefits and provides a
pension plan and Japanese manufacturers do not, than it costs any Japanese
manufacture to assemble cars and trucks in the US, the import buyers are
willing to pay the Japanese manufacturers and dealers a higher profits to
drive home their vehicles.

As one who formally purchased imports like Toyota and Honda, that says more
about the buying prowess of the those who buy Japanese vehicles, than those
who choose to buy vehicles for GM and Ford, than it does about the build
qualities of the individual
manufactures.

Since I switched back to domestic I have found they are just as good or
better than the import I have owned.  In addition I have been spending
thousands less to buy the domestics I now drive.   I am saving hundreds of
dollars less, at the domestic dealerships, to have my cars serviced, than I
was paying at foreign dealerships, as well.   ;)

mike

>> However the statement, that GM is not offering vehicle that buyer want to
>> buy, is obviously not true based on its sales figure vis a v all other
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Toyota's
> vehicles, which is why they sell for so much less.
C. E. White - 02 Apr 2007 12:49 GMT
> 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use.  That is
> unless you
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> The  4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve.

No it is not. The 4.6L V-8 in the trucks is a 2 valve SOHC design.

> The mustang engines are still pushrod design.

No, the 4.0L V-6 in a Mustang is an SOHC design, The 4.6L is the three
valve SOHC design.

> Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ?  How about variable valve
> timing ?

Currently none of the Ford V-8s have 4 valves. In the recent past
certain models got the DOHC 3.9L, 4.6L, and 5.4L V-8s, but Ford is
getting essentially the same horsepower from the 3 valve SOHC design,
so they aren't offering a 4 valve V-8 at the moment. Ford does offer
several 4 valve DOHC I-4s and V-6s. All the 3 valve engines have
variable valve timing, as do the DOHC engines.

>> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Tundra   V8  5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm
> Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm

Look under the hood of a Tundra, and then look under the hood of a
Corvette. Which engine takes up more space (the Tundra). Which engine
weighs more (the Tundra).

> Similar numbers out of less displacement.  This would suggest the
> Corvette
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> lifters hence not DOHC.
> So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.

No true. You don't have to have push rods to have hydraulic lash
adjusters.

>> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front
>> > brake
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> without
> having to float the caliper.

Spoken like a techno geek who thinks if race car has something it is
the best thing for a street car. The "pressure" applied is no
different if everything is working properly. With sliding calipers the
biggest problem is sticky sliders. With modern sliding calipers that
are properly maintained this isn't much of a problem. 4 piston caliper
don't suffer from sticky sliders (there are none), but they do suffer
from sticky pistons (been there) and you have twice as many seals to
leak. As far as I am concerned there is only one advantage to 4 piston
calipers - you can plumb the pistons in pairs to achieve true dual
circuit braking. I am not sure it Toyota is doing this - do you know?
I doubt it since they would have to have twice as many brake lines
running to the front of the truck.

> It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area.

No, this wrong.

> I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2.

The Tundra doesn't stop any better than competitive vehicles. If there
is no performance advantage, then it is hype.

>> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down
> ?

Or sludged up engines that burn up your car? You should look at the
history of the cruise control deactivation switch recall. Initially
there were a very few vehicles from a clearly designed production
range that appeared to have a problem. Ford announced a recall for
those specific vehicles. Suddenly every sort of  Ford truck built in
the last 15 years was accused of catching on fire. Fords were accused
of burring up that didn't even have the same style circuit. Sort of
like the Toyota sludge case don't you think?

Ed
KokomoKid - 04 Apr 2007 00:25 GMT
>I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
>deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than
>the competition.

If Toyota's ads are misleading about stopping distances, that is not good,
but as far as the 0-60 times, that is relevant.  About 95% of the people who
buy large pickups in the US have no rational reason to buy them.  They like
the sound of a large V-8 and like to see over cars, with the byproduct of
blocking the forward view of those driving cars.

Let's face it.  For most of those who buy pickups, the new Tundra is the
best one out there.  It is quick, quiet, and comfortable.  It is a
near-luxury car that looks like a pickup truck, but will also do pickup
truck work for those who need that capability.
Leythos - 04 Apr 2007 00:47 GMT
> Let's face it.  For most of those who buy pickups, the new Tundra is the
> best one out there.  It is quick, quiet, and comfortable.  It is a
> near-luxury car that looks like a pickup truck, but will also do pickup
> truck work for those who need that capability.

That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8.

Signature

Leythos

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

B A R R Y - 04 Apr 2007 12:18 GMT
> That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8.

Now, picture the Dodge as reliable...
Noon-Air - 04 Apr 2007 12:54 GMT
>> That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8.
>
> Now, picture the Dodge as reliable...

ROFLMAO
Wickeddoll® - 04 Apr 2007 20:00 GMT
>> That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8.
>
> Now, picture the Dodge as reliable...

LOL

Natalie
Jeff - 05 Apr 2007 13:30 GMT
<...>

> Let's face it.  For most of those who buy pickups, the new Tundra is the
> best one out there.  It is quick, quiet, and comfortable.  It is a
> near-luxury car that looks like a pickup truck, but will also do pickup
> truck work for those who need that capability.

A Toyota Camry, Ford Focus, Chevy Impala, Dodge 300, Honda Ridgeline, and
Saab 9-3 are more appropriate vehicles for most truck people who buy trucks.

Jeff
Mike Hunter - 05 Apr 2007 15:49 GMT
You are kidding ,right?  LOOK around, see WHO is using all those FORD trucks
you see in every direction you look.   LOL

mike

> <...>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Jeff
Jeff - 05 Apr 2007 16:03 GMT
> You are kidding ,right?  LOOK around, see WHO is using all those FORD
> trucks you see in every direction you look.   LOL

And the vast majority of these people don't need trucks any more than I need
a truck.

Jeff

> mike
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
>> Jeff
Will - 06 Apr 2007 14:58 GMT
Back to the original topic of "WAAAAH Toyota's advertisements are
misleading!"

Nobody cried and stamped their feet when Chevy said that they make the
most "durable, longest lasting trucks on the road."  Last time I
checked, my '86 Hilux wasn't a Chevy.  Oh God, inflated claims!
Whatever will we do?
Ed White - 06 Apr 2007 15:56 GMT
> Back to the original topic of "WAAAAH Toyota's advertisements are
> misleading!"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> checked, my '86 Hilux wasn't a Chevy.  Oh God, inflated claims!
> Whatever will we do?

I actually I have grumbled about that exact claim more than once.
Although I have seen the claim on some recent Chevy Truck commercials
(maybe old ones), they don't make it on the Chevy web site. I see
Dodge is now making this claim both on TV and on their web site. The
fine print on the Dodge web site says -"Based on R.L. Polk & Co.
Vehicles in Operation registration statistics 1986-2005. I assume it
is a true statement in some way. (see http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/features/durability.html
). I don't see how both Chevy and Dodge can claim to have the most
durable vehicles. And there are so many factors involved that affect
the life of a vehicle, I can't see how this claim is meaningful to a
new truck buyer. I do agree it is an inflated claim and even
meaningless, but not actually misleading.

I don't put this claim in the same category as the ads for the new
Tundra. They are clearly constructed to be misleading. The see/saw add
is the worst. The new Tundra is a fine truck for some uses, but the
ads are misleading. The old Tundra ads were merely irritating (like
the one with the special lenght boards, or the one where they pull a
small boat up a ramp), the new ones have crossed over the line into
deception. Toyota should be ashamed to stoop to this level. If they
want to make misleading ads, they should have made more like the
Tacoma ads. Clearly no one believes that the Tacoma can stand a metor
strike, or survive being thrown around by a sea monster. I don't mind
clever comic commercials, just misleading ones.

Ed
dh - 16 Mar 2007 03:23 GMT
> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> found and that should be refuted. Also, they are offering a "IVC" type
> program on Tundra to help with sales.

[chop]

Oh My God!  An ad that's actually a dramatization!  You could knock me over
with a feather!

Lou's just jealous.  In this article, note the SPD (sales per dealer)
figures:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3332

(towards the bottom of the article proper)  Buick gets a mention that
explains Lou's jealousy.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hachiroku ハチロク - 17 Mar 2007 01:22 GMT
>> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
>> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3332

No wonder Chevy dealers are just about GIVING the Cobalt away!

> (towards the bottom of the article proper)  Buick gets a mention that
> explains Lou's jealousy.
DH - 19 Mar 2007 21:01 GMT
>>> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
>>> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> No wonder Chevy dealers are just about GIVING the Cobalt away!

Are they?  At free, a Cobalt would almost be a good deal...

... almost.

>> (towards the bottom of the article proper)  Buick gets a mention that
>> explains Lou's jealousy.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Viperkiller - 16 Mar 2007 04:56 GMT
>Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
>that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>Ed

Right... because GM ads have never been misleading.  

Don't present yourself as someone who's just a messenger.  You
obviously enjoy presenting acrimonious data (information would be an
inaccurate term).  Just because a GM dealer is losing sales and makes
a claim, doesn't make it so.
Ed White - 16 Mar 2007 12:54 GMT
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:51:09 -0400, "C. E. White"
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I persoanlly think the Tundra ads passed over the line form less than
honest to down right misleading. The adds for the "old" Tundra were
merely misleading. Some of the ads for the new Tundra might not be
outright lies, but they are so close as to be indistingishable from
lies. Like othes have pointed out, ads often venture into gray areas
as far as truthfulness. However the two "dramatic" ads for the new
Tundra are among the least honest ads for a vechile I have seen in a
long time. Hiding the tether on the drag race ad (while claiming it is
an "actual demonstartion") and the faults with the seesaw ad pointed
out above indicate to me that Toyota is tryng to mislead Consumers
about the capabilities of the new Tundra. Maybe that is OK with you. I
think it is disgusting. I think the Tacoma ads are merely silly
(although funny) since they show capabilities that no one believes are
true (meteor strike survial, falling off a cliff without damage,
tougher than a sea monster, etc.). However, the new Tundra ads are at
attempt to lead you to believe that the new Tundra has characteristics
that they may not actually have.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 16 Mar 2007 14:44 GMT
> I persoanlly think the Tundra ads passed over the line form less than
> honest to down right misleading. The adds for the "old" Tundra were
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Ed

You're right. All lies. On the other hand, I saw an ad last night with a GM
pickup pulling a train. I'm sure that's 100% accurate.

About that tether in the Tundra ad: Are you talking about the ad where they
demonstrate the braking and the truck stops right at the edge of the long
platform that sticks out over the edge of a cliff? If that's the one, I have
something educational to share with you. Anyone who would drive that truck
without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of crap whose favorite
saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".
Jeff - 16 Mar 2007 14:51 GMT
<...>

> About that tether in the Tundra ad: Are you talking about the ad where
> they demonstrate the braking and the truck stops right at the edge of the
> long platform that sticks out over the edge of a cliff? If that's the one,
> I have something educational to share with you. Anyone who would drive
> that truck without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of crap
> whose favorite saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".

That would not be his or her favorite saying. (S)he would get to say it
exactly once.

Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom - 16 Mar 2007 14:53 GMT
> <...>
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Jeff

I stand corrected. :-)

Sudden left turn:  My washing machine  - yeah - it's got a hemi.
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 00:48 GMT
Actually even the Tundra could likely pull that train as well, but the
saying  is "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this.......LOL

mike

>> I persoanlly think the Tundra ads passed over the line form less than
>> honest to down right misleading. The adds for the "old" Tundra were
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> that truck without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of crap
> whose favorite saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".
dh - 17 Mar 2007 03:38 GMT
> Actually even the Tundra could likely pull that train as well, but the
> saying  is "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this.......LOL
>
> mike

I seem to recall we covered this topic a few weeks ago and the consensus of
opinion was that Jethro would never let Bubba hold his beer.  Or vice versa.

<slurp> <k-tink - can hitting asphalt>
<buuurp>
Hey, Bubba!  Watch THIS!

and then the predictable...

>>> I persoanlly think the Tundra ads passed over the line form less than
>>> honest to down right misleading. The adds for the "old" Tundra were
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>> drive that truck without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of
>> crap whose favorite saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hachiroku ハチロク - 17 Mar 2007 01:20 GMT
>  Anyone who would drive
> that truck without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of crap
> whose favorite saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".

BWahahaha! Agreed!
Ever seen Jackass?
JoeSpareBedroom - 17 Mar 2007 13:36 GMT
>>  Anyone who would drive
>> that truck without a safety device is a pathetically stupid sack of crap
>> whose favorite saying is "Hey Bubba! Watch th.......uh oh".
>
> BWahahaha! Agreed!
> Ever seen Jackass?

Selected excerpts.
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 00:44 GMT
You are of that opinion because you have a bias for Toyota and do not know
much about trucks it appears.  The fact is Toyotas newest truck is just
starting to catch up to the build quality that has been the hallmark of
those made by GM, Ford and Dodge for at least five years or more.  When the
commercials refer to what 'use to be' they are referring to what THE Tundra
'use to be.'  Everything one sees in the Tundra commercials can be done and
done much better by GM, Ford and Dodge trucks with a heaver load and for a
lot less money.

mike

>>Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
>>that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>>
>>Ed

Just because a GM dealer is losing sales and makes
> a claim, doesn't make it so.
dh - 17 Mar 2007 01:40 GMT
> You are of that opinion because you have a bias for Toyota and do not know
> much about trucks it appears.  The fact is Toyotas newest truck is just
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> mike

"build quality" in the same sentence as "GM, Ford and Dodge."  LOL.  Good
one, "mike," we didn't know you were such a comedian..

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 19:49 GMT
Apparently new trucks buyer do not agree with you minority opinion.  35% of
the trucks sold in 2006 were Fords, 30% were Chevys.  19% were Dodge trucks
and only a measly 5% were Toyota trucks.   If I were a Toyota partisan that
would not be a laughing matter  ;)

mike

>> You are of that opinion because you have a bias for Toyota and do not
>> know much about trucks it appears.  The fact is Toyotas newest truck is
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> "build quality" in the same sentence as "GM, Ford and Dodge."  LOL.  Good
> one, "mike," we didn't know you were such a comedian..
dh - 18 Mar 2007 22:53 GMT
> Apparently new trucks buyer do not agree with you minority opinion.  35%
> of the trucks sold in 2006 were Fords, 30% were Chevys.  19% were Dodge
> trucks and only a measly 5% were Toyota trucks.   If I were a Toyota
> partisan that would not be a laughing matter  ;)
>
> mike

At one time, Toyota's share of the truck market was closer to zero.  At one
time, Toyota's share of the auto market was not quite zero.  At one time,
the Koreans' share of the auto market was zero.

It takes time to build market share.  Especially difficult for to break into
the truck market (a little flag-waving still goes a long way in the truck
market).  But GM, Ford and Dodge should take VERY good care of their
customers because, from now on, every time they screw somebody over (like
that self-ejecting spark plug issue that Ford's mishandling right now),
Toyota will be there ready to give that customer what he wants,
satisfaction.

I'm not a partisan, I'm just a satisfied customer.

>>> You are of that opinion because you have a bias for Toyota and do not
>>> know much about trucks it appears.  The fact is Toyotas newest truck is
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> "build quality" in the same sentence as "GM, Ford and Dodge."  LOL.  Good
>> one, "mike," we didn't know you were such a comedian..

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

C. E. White - 22 Mar 2007 15:51 GMT
> It takes time to build market share.  Especially difficult for to
> break into the truck market (a little flag-waving still goes a long
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Ford's mishandling right now), Toyota will be there ready to give
> that customer what he wants, satisfaction.

You don't think Toyota mishandled the sludge issue?

> I'm not a partisan, I'm just a satisfied customer.

I was a dissatisfied Toyota customer (it doesn't mean I won't buy one
in the future).

Ed
Mike Hunter - 22 Mar 2007 19:59 GMT
It indeed seems a bit strange that one will choose to condemn, or praise,
ALL of the vehicles made by any manufacturer on the basis of one they may
have owned years before, doesn't it?  Particularly when they only buy used
vehicles that some other owner not longer wanted for some reason.    ;)

mike

>> It takes time to build market share.  Especially difficult for to break
>> into the truck market (a little flag-waving still goes a long way in the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Ed
DH - 22 Mar 2007 20:03 GMT
> It indeed seems a bit strange that one will choose to condemn, or praise,
> ALL of the vehicles made by any manufacturer on the basis of one they may
> have owned years before, doesn't it?  Particularly when they only buy used
> vehicles that some other owner not longer wanted for some reason.    ;)
>
> mike

Are you saying that the used car market is a pointless waste of time?  That
one should keep a car two or three years and then send it to the crusher?  I
can see where you, driving Ford products, would think this.

>>> It takes time to build market share.  Especially difficult for to break
>>> into the truck market (a little flag-waving still goes a long way in the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>> Ed

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Mar 2007 20:08 GMT
Let's see if this makes sense:  People should make decisions by ignoring
past experience.

Right? You said that. Do you agree with what you said?

> It indeed seems a bit strange that one will choose to condemn, or praise,
> ALL of the vehicles made by any manufacturer on the basis of one they may
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>
>> Ed
Jeff - 25 Mar 2007 05:37 GMT
right now),
> Toyota will be there ready to give that customer what he wants,
> satisfaction.
>
> I'm not a partisan, I'm just a satisfied customer.

I love my '06 Tundra.  I sat in an '07 the other day and I prefer the
'06.   The dash on the '07 is way too "blingy" for me.

You guys can get all wound up about how one truck pulls 10,000 pounds
while another one (gasp!) pulls 10,500 pounds but the simple truth is
that the Tundra is an extremely pleasant vehicle to drive; WAY nicer
than the equivelant Ford, Dodge, or Chevy.  It's quiet, smooth, and
powerful, with great head and legroom... I'm a real estate agent and I
don't hesitate one second to take clients around in my Tundra.

As far as what it can DO, well, it can do anything any other half-ton
truck can do.  I live out in the woods and heat my house with wood.
One time recently, I was cutting firewood.  There was another guy
there with a big Dodge pickup.  When we got done, we both had about
the same amount of firewood in our trucks.  Then I had the displeasure
of following him down the mountain as he nursed his truck down the
logging roads at about 10 mph!   Point being, my truck did everything
his "big tough" truck did, and I was passing cars on the way home once
I got on the highway.  Better yet, once I got the firewood unloaded, I
was back to having a smooth, quiet, powerful, wonderfully reliable
truck while he was stuck with his Dodge!

Another example.  I hunt elk.  Every year, we all pile all our crap
into trailers and haul up up over the mountains to Idaho.  One buddy
drives a huge Dodge diesel.  Another has a Chevy Tahoe.  They are both
very proud of their powerful rigs.  Going up and over the mountains
with our trailers, I just set my cruise control at 70 mph and let the
truck do what it wanted.  What it wanted, was to loaf along under no
noticable strain.  So... I wasn't exactly hauling a 32-foot trailer or
something but I have friends with an American-truck bias who like to
laugh the the Tundra is only good for hauling a couple sheets of
plywood.. and that's just insane!

If I were truly using my truck, regularly, to haul a big horse trailer
or thousands of pounds of bricks or something, I'd do the right thing
and buy an F350 or big Dodge diesel- that's the right tool for the
job.  It's pretty much the oNLY tool for the job.  But for ANY of the
things that half-ton trucks do, the Tundra is the best choice, and
Detroit knows it!

Oh- at 16,000 miles I have not had one thing wrong.  Not one.
Perfect.  My buddy has a Corolla wagon with 280,000 miles on that runs
like new.  My other car is a '95 Land Cruiser with 135k on it...
perfect.   In the two years I've had it, I put an oxygen sensor in
it.  The Japanese are building the best cars on the planet, period.

-jeff
DH - 26 Mar 2007 14:14 GMT
> right now),
>> Toyota will be there ready to give that customer what he wants,
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> was back to having a smooth, quiet, powerful, wonderfully reliable
> truck while he was stuck with his Dodge!

[snip]
> Oh- at 16,000 miles I have not had one thing wrong.  Not one.
> Perfect.  My buddy has a Corolla wagon with 280,000 miles on that runs
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> -jeff

What kind of fuel economy do you get?

Toyota Tundras are fairly rare but I did get a ride in one, once, and was
impressed at how nice the interior was.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jeff - 28 Mar 2007 05:24 GMT
> > right now),
> >> Toyota will be there ready to give that customer what he wants,
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> Toyota Tundras are fairly rare but I did get a ride in one, once, and was
> impressed at how nice the interior was.

I get about 20 on the highway and about 16 in mixed-use.  I never do
any straight-city driving...

-jeff
DH - 28 Mar 2007 14:17 GMT
>> > right now),
>> >> Toyota will be there ready to give that customer what he wants,
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> -jeff

Thanks.  I should have asked earlier, is it 4WD?

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

mack - 16 Mar 2007 18:19 GMT
> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> believe the trailer is 10,000 lbs. Fact: It's a 5,000 lb truck pulling a
> 5,000 lb trailer. A little slight of hand? You bet.

It's tough pushing 10,000 lbs up a steep grade.  I may not be a numbers
cruncher by trade,
but the last time I looked, 5000 lbs of truck plus 5000 lbs of trailer
equals 10,000 lbs.
Where's the deception?  No 'sleight' of hand here.

> 2. Then, on the way down the grade, the camera zooms in on the brakes as
> the vehicles comes to a screeching halt just prior to the end of ramp.
> Next time you see the ad....look for the 'mice type'. It indicates the
> trailer is equipped with electric brakes. Fact....the electric brakes stop
> the trailer -- not the truck. A little slight of hand? You bet.

I guess the 'mice type' was large enough for you to read, and to note the
fact
that the trailer has electric brakes.   No deception here either.

> 3. And why does Toyota have bigger brake pads? They need them....their
> truck is heavier. Stopping distance between our truck and theirs is
> virtually identical. And why does Toyota have a 6 speed transmission? To
> improve their fuel economy....which is still 2 mpg less than ours.

You say "virtually" identical.   What are the ACTUAL stopping distances of
the
two trucks?????
A six speed transmission is inherently more versatile than a four speed.
SO?

> 4. And don't forget....their big V8 has one axle ratio -- a 4.3. Suck fuel
> much? Our trucks offer several axle options to optimize towing and fuel
> economy.
>
> Ed

Mebbe, but the Toyota will still be driving like a new truck when the GMC is
on
its third owner, or in a boneyard.
Ed White - 16 Mar 2007 19:02 GMT
> > Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
> > that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why do you think that? Any proof, or just wild speculation.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 16 Mar 2007 19:30 GMT
>> Mebbe, but the Toyota will still be driving like a new truck when the GMC
>> is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ed

Cars can require two general categories of service:

- Normal: Things everyone expects, like tires, oil/filter, fuel filter,
belts, battery, and even things that don't necessarily have a scheduled
replacement time, but which experienced drivers are aware of, like
alternator, pumps.

- Outrageous repairs required because of hideous flaws in design &
manufacturing:

Example - my sister's 1983 Buick, perfectly maintained, driven normally,
transmission has meltdown at 60,000 miles.

Example - my 1992 Taurus. Fusible link located at bottom of engine
compartment, completely unprotected from the elements. Link and its
connectors corroded and turned to crumbs, preventing car from starting.
Since it's common knowledge that electrical connections need to be
thoroughly protected in engine compartments, we can safely conclude that the
car's designer intended for this problem to occur, perhaps as a prank.

Example - Chrysler mini-vans. I can identify them blindfolded, just by the
smell of their exhausts. One year old and they stink like an ancient Blazer.
It's strange, because Chrysler owns some of the same CNC machining equipment
used at Toyota factories. But, they choose to run them sloppy. Don't ask my
source, I won't tell you, but I'm sure you'll dispute it. Enjoy.

Example - another Ford I owned, mid 1970s. Stick shift held onto tranny by a
nylon (plastic) threaded ring. Exhaust located 4 inches from that spot.
Nylon ring softens from heat, threads deteriorate, so one day, I downshift
from 3rd to 2nd and end up holding a shifter that's attached to nothing,
other than being held to the console by the boot. Wait. It gets better: The
dealer claims they've never heard of this before. That didn't work, for
reasons not important here. They fixed it for free. Six months later, same
thing. I decide to fix it myself, since it was summertime and I was curious.
Parts guy says "Oh yeah...we always keep that ring in stock. Lots of
problems." Why didn't the shop want to fix it for free without being
coerced? Because in order to fix it, you had to remove the front seats,
remove all the carpet trim, lift the carpet, so you could finally get to the
screws that held the console in place. Under the console were hidden the
screws that held the shifter boot to the transmission hump. Actual time to
replace the melted ring: two minutes.

You really need to stop mixing religion with your opinions about cars.
dbu., - 16 Mar 2007 20:14 GMT
> >> Mebbe, but the Toyota will still be driving like a new truck when the GMC
> >> is
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> You really need to stop mixing religion with your opinions about cars.

Brand new 1971 Dodge Fury III, 360 cid, at 40000 miles valve job due to
sticking valves.  Owner (me) payed up.

New 1977 Dodge B200 van, hesitation, dealer couldn't find the problem,
owner (me) with help from a watchmaker friend and jewelers eye loup
found accelerator pump ports on carb body not drilled thru all the way.  
Broached holes and hesitation gone.

Then there was the brand new 1980 Dodge Omni, stick shift model, clutch
shutter, dealer replaced clutch and still shuttered.  Owner (me)
replaced car.

1982 Olds Cutlass, transmission crapped out aprox 50000 miles, owner
(me)  pays up.

Used 1989 Toyota Camry, 27000 when purchased from Hertz, oil changes,
replaced at 80000 miles, best car I ever owned, but I had to have a
Dodge mini van.

Dodge mini van, I won't go there.

Brand new 2004 Toyota Sienna, oil changes and bliss.  End of story.
--
Hachiroku ハチロク - 17 Mar 2007 01:18 GMT
> 1982 Olds Cutlass, transmission crapped out aprox 50000 miles, owner (me)
> pays up.

GM got investigated for this. Seems they were putting a Chevette trans
(made for a ~100 HP car) into cars with >100 HP.

Shoot, they were putting them in V-8 Caddies!

If you had raised a stink, GM would have replaced it for free. But,
with you not knowing it was a Chevette tranny, can you guess what they
would have replaced it with?
mack - 17 Mar 2007 00:16 GMT
> Why do you think that? Any proof, or just wild speculation.
>
> Ed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no proof of course, because like anyone else, I cannot foretell the
future, but based on three Toyotas and several GM and Ford products (Thank
God I haven't owned a Chrysler product since 1958!) I'm just hazarding the
guess that The Toys will be around long after the others go bye-bye.
Speculation, but anything but wild.   GM in particular makes cars that make
themselves obsolete in a few years.   If you really want to see a car
self-destruct, get a Cadillac Catera, (the car that zigs....right into the
wrecking yard.)
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 01:30 GMT
Get real I had enough to know most of the Toyota of old were crap as well, .
.  One can not base their new car purchase on what was on the market just
five years ago let alone ten or fifteen.  What counts today is what is
available on the market today and at what price.  In that regard Toyota
makes good stuff but then so is every manufacturer building good long
lasting cars today.

mike

>> Why do you think that? Any proof, or just wild speculation.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> a car self-destruct, get a Cadillac Catera, (the car that zigs....right
> into the wrecking yard.)
mack - 17 Mar 2007 04:57 GMT
> Get real I had enough to know most of the Toyota of old were crap as well,
> . .  One can not base their new car purchase on what was on the market
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> mike

My first Toyota was a used 1986 Camry hatchback sedan, which I drove until
130,000 miles, at which point my daughter needed a car and I swapped with
her for her old Peugeot.   She drove the Toy another 47,000 miles and sold
it to a classmate at ASU in Tempe. He's probably still driving it. I recall
renewing the brakes and changing timing belts, and probably a set of tires
in the time I owned it.  And that's all.
Although they were sold in much greater numbers, GM cars of 1986 vintage are
seldom seen on the highways and byways, at least to my old eyes.  And the LA
Times Sunday ads for used cars are somewhat enlightening, like the frequency
with which ads for used Cadillacs might state "87,000 miles, new
transmission" or "85,000 mi, rebuilt engine".   And these are not Chevies,
they're the top of the line....C A D I L L A C.   There's a Buick dealer in
the San Gabriel Valley who sells a lot of ex-rentals, with prices like
$12,950 for a '07 Chevy Impala.
(with five or six in stock at that price).  That's enough evidence for me
that GM is not making quality iron.

Oh, and I don't think every car maker is making quality merchandise.   Check
out  the problems with new Land Rovers and Range Rovers, which are not
econoboxes.
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 20:00 GMT
Are there as many of those as there are Toyotas that have the sludge
problem?   The manufacturer with the most recalls in 2006 was Toyota.  Does
that mean they are all bad vehicles?  Certainly not, it simply man that all
manufacturers make some on occasion that are not up to snuff.  That is why
they all offer a warranty, including Rolls Royce.  The fact is when one buys
a new vehicle they have a statistical change of around 2% of getting one of
the bad ones, no matter what brand name is on the grill, and a 98% change of
getting one that is trouble free, no matter what brand name is on the grill
;)

mike

>> Get real I had enough to know most of the Toyota of old were crap as
>> well, . .  One can not base their new car purchase on what was on the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> My first Toyota was a used 1986 Camry hatchback sedan, which I drove until
> 130,000 miles,

That's enough evidence for me
> that GM is not making quality iron.
>
> Oh, and I don't think every car maker is making quality merchandise.
> Check out  the problems with new Land Rovers and Range Rovers, which are
> not econoboxes.
Ed White - 19 Mar 2007 19:23 GMT
> > Ed
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> self-destruct, get a Cadillac Catera, (the car that zigs....right into the
> wrecking yard.)

I know of at least one Catera that is not in the junk yard - my next
door neighboor has one. And compared to some of the tired looking
Toyotas in the lot, it looks great. And at least it doesn't cloud over
the parking lot with a blue cloud like one of my other neighbor's
Camry does.

Making generalitions about any particular brand of car based on
limited experience can be dangerous. I am sure there are plenty of
good looking and running Cateras on the highways. And I am sure there
are plenty in the junk yard as well (and I am sure there are plenty of
Camrys in the junk yards as well). Cateras were never particualrly
popular and I suspect a lot of the second hand ones didn't end up in
the hands of people that really care about cars.

Ed
JoeSpareBedroom - 19 Mar 2007 19:36 GMT
>> think that? Any proof, or just wild speculation.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> the parking lot with a blue cloud like one of my other neighbor's
> Camry does.

I've owned a total of 4 Toyotas. In all 4 instances, the cars *never* needed
oil added between changes. I can assure you that your neighbor's blue cloud
problem is due to shoddy maintenance, not bad workmanship.
High Tech Misfit - 19 Mar 2007 20:09 GMT
>> I know of at least one Catera that is not in the junk yard - my next
>> door neighboor has one. And compared to some of the tired looking
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> oil added between changes. I can assure you that your neighbor's blue cloud
> problem is due to shoddy maintenance, not bad workmanship.

Or he's just pulling crap out of his a.s as usual.
Ed White - 19 Mar 2007 22:54 GMT
> >> I know of at least one Catera that is not in the junk yard - my next
> >> door neighboor has one. And compared to some of the tired looking
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Or he's just pulling crap out of his a.s as usual.

So you have never seen a Toyota that smokes?

If you want a picture of the Catera, that is no problem. I don't even
have to leave the house to get it. The smoking Toyota is more of a
problem. Since they changed the time, it is dark when my neighbor
leaves for work. I don't think I can get a decent picture in the dark.
Maybe in a month or so. But I suspect you've seen at least one Toyota
that smokes when it starts up.

I am amazed when people make statements like "I've owned a total of 4
Toyotas. In all 4 instances, the cars *never* needed oil added between
changes." It is not that the statement is unbelievable. Rather I am
surprised that Toyota owners think this is anything special. I haven't
owned a car that wasn't made in England in 35 years that needed oil
added between changes. On my farm I have a 36 year old Dodge Truck
that doesn't use oil between changes even now. There is nothing
special about a properly maintained vechile not neediing oil added
between changes.

Ed
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 00:53 GMT
I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
trucks in the bone yards ;)

mike

>> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
>> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> is on
> its third owner, or in a boneyard.
Viperkiller - 17 Mar 2007 03:44 GMT
>I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
>the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
>trucks in the bone yards ;)
>
>mike

I'm sure that's something that you really kept track of and have proof
of.  Perhaps you read too many GM brochures.
Dante - 19 Mar 2007 21:07 GMT
>> I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
>> the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'm sure that's something that you really kept track of and have proof
> of.  Perhaps you read too many GM brochures.

Why would a Toyota driver have to be a frequenter of bone yards?

Dante
Wickeddoll® - 19 Mar 2007 21:25 GMT
"Dante" ...
, "Mike Hunter"

>>> I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage
>>> of the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Dante

*high-five*

Natalie
Dante - 20 Mar 2007 00:00 GMT
> "Dante" ...
> , "Mike Hunter"
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Natalie

Thx
. - 20 Mar 2007 06:53 GMT
>>> I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
>>> the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Dante

Excellent point.  Mike Hunter is a Ford owner so that explains why he
frequents bone yards.
Scott in Florida - 20 Mar 2007 13:42 GMT
>>>> I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
>>>> the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Excellent point.  Mike Hunter is a Ford owner so that explains why he
>frequents bone yards.  

He trades before the warranty is up.  No need to visit bone yards in
those cases....

Signature


Scott in  Florida

Mike Hunter - 20 Mar 2007 18:34 GMT
To find parts or to get them cheap, naturally.   ;)

mike

>>> I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage
>>> of the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Dante
Dante - 20 Mar 2007 19:11 GMT
> To find parts or to get them cheap, naturally.   ;)
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> Dante

I'm beginning to think, because it's at the end of everyone of your
posts, that the little smiley face doesn't really hold the meaning that
it implies.  Maybe a little OCD?

Dante
Dante - 20 Mar 2007 19:13 GMT
> To find parts or to get them cheap, naturally.   ;)
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> Dante

I'm beginning to think, because it's at the end of everyone of your
posts, that the little smiley face doesn't really hold the meaning that
it implies.  Maybe a little OCD?  ;)

Dante
Dante - 20 Mar 2007 19:14 GMT
> To find parts or to get them cheap, naturally.   ;)
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> Dante

I'm beginning to think, because it's at the end of all of your posts,
that the little smiley face doesn't really hold the meaning that it
implies.  Maybe a little OCD?   ;)

Dante
JoeSpareBedroom - 17 Mar 2007 13:39 GMT
>I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage of
>the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
>trucks in the bone yards ;)
>
> mike

Hey, mister never-learned-statistics: Do you want to take another look at
that statement and fix it because without certain information, it's
meaningless? Or, should we just laugh at you, yet again?
Mike Hunter - 17 Mar 2007 19:45 GMT
Jimmy has ten apples and Tommy has five apples.  If they each have tree
apples that have worms, who has the highest percentage of wormy apples?
You can get two extra points for neatness   ;)

mike

>>I guess we can assume you do not go to many bone yards.  As a percentage
>>of the trucks sold in the US, there are a hell of a lot more rusted Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that statement and fix it because without certain information, it's
> meaningless? Or, should we just laugh at you, yet again?
Mike Hunter - 16 Mar 2007 21:45 GMT
Those commercials are meant to influence Tacoma and Camry buyers that may
want a full size truck.  The fact is the standard pay load of the Tundra is
only 10,000 LB.  Real truck buyers know better.    The Silverado standard
pay load is 10,500 LB and the F150 is 11,000 LB, both of which cost less
than the Tundra as well.  ;)

mike
> Borrowed off the Internet....I am just the messenger, although I agree
> that the new Tundra ads are deliberately misleading....
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> Ed
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.