 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / April 2007GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
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 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 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 > 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 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 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 >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 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 >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 > 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 "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 > 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 - 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 - > 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 - >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 >>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 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 > 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. "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" ... >> "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. > 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 >> 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. >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. ;-) >>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?  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> 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 >>>> 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. > 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 >> 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. > 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 >> I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Ed Whatever you say, shmexpert. >>>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 >>>>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. > 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 >> 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. > 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 >> 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. > 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. >> 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. >>> 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 >>>> 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. > 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 >> 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. 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. SignatureMac Cool > 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. > 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) >> 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 >>> 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. >>> 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 >>>> 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. >>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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. > 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 >> 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? > 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 >> 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? > 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 >> 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. > It's perfectly clear. Ask your toaster to help you. No help. My toaster just stares back at me. RCE >> 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? > 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 >> 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. >>>>>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 >>>>>>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. 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - >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 >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 > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> 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. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 18 days 27 min >>> 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> 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. :-) "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 > 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 >> 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. "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 >>>>> 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...... >>>> 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. >>>>> 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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. "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 > 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 "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 > 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 >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.... SignatureScott in Florida >>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 >>>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. >> 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. SignatureScott in Florida >>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 >>>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. SignatureScott in Florida 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 >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. SignatureScott in Florida > 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 >> 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. SignatureScott in Florida >>> 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 > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> 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. >>> 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? >>>> 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. >>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) >>>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. >> 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 >> 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... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> 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 >>> 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. :-) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> 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.... SignatureScott in Florida > 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 >> I just did a goggle >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Ed LOL....I know.... Just jestin ya a bit... SignatureScott in Florida > 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... The bait is stinky, sorry no bite on that bullshit sonny, try again........ >> 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 >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. SignatureScott in Florida 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 >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 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "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 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 >>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 > 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..."? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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..."? >> 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 > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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? > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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 > 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 > 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 >> 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! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> 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 SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 17 days 13:30 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 >> 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 >> 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 > >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 > > >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 >> > >I agree with you that the new Tundra ads are deceptive >> > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Al Go check their web site. > > 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 >> > 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. > >> > 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:) >> >> > 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.... >> > 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 > >> > 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 > > >> > 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 > <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. *************************************************************************************************************************** >"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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SignatureScott in Florida 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel 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 > 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 > 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. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 17 days 13:18 >> 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? > 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 > 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. 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. > 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. 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. 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. > 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. > 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." > 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 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 > 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 > 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 Signaturekai 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 > 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 :) SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> 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 SignatureScott in Florida >>> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>> 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? Signaturekai 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 >>>>> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) 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. 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 :) > 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) 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. > 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? SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> 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.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) 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. >>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... > 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> 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! Signaturek >>> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > 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 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 >>>> 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. Signaturek >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 >> 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? >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 >> 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> >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. >>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. Signaturek >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 >>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 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 > PLEASE quit crossposting this crap Please quit topposting. Oh, and get a better newsreader. I'm sure they have them there in Mississippi. Signaturekai 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 > 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>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 >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 >> 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 >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 >>> 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! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 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 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 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 > 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 > 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 >>>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 ;-) >>>>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 >>>>>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. 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 > 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 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> 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> > 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. 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> > 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." >> 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> 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> >>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. Signaturekai 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 > 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. 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. 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. 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... > 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... > 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) 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? 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 >> 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. >> 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. Signaturekai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 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. > 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. Signaturek 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. > 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.) Signaturek > 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 >> 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. Signaturek > 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 > > 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 >> > 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! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> > 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 Signaturekai 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 > 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. >> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>> 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! >>>> 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) 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! 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. > 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 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 > 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. > 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. > 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 > 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 >> 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 > >> 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 ? > 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. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2:26 1 user > > 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 >> > 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. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> > 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. > 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. 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. 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. >>> > 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. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 11:02 1 user > > > 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? > > > > 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? 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? > 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? 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? >> > 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. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 10:56 1 user >> >> 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 ? > >> >> 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 ? >> >> >> 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 ? > >> >> >> 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 ? > 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 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 > 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 "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. 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. > 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. 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. 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. 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. > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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. > 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 >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. > 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. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8. Now, picture the Dodge as reliable... >> That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8. > > Now, picture the Dodge as reliable... ROFLMAO >> That's how I feel/felt about the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 V8. > > Now, picture the Dodge as reliable... LOL Natalie <...> > 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 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 > 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 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? > 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 > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> 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. >>> 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >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. > 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 > 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". <...> > 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 > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff I stand corrected. :-) Sudden left turn: My washing machine - yeah - it's got a hemi. 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". > 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". SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 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? >> 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. 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. > 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.. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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.. > 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.. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 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 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 > 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 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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 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 > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > 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 >> > 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? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 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. > > 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 >> 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. > >> 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. -- > 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? > 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.) 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.) > 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. 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 > [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 >> 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. >> 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. > >> 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 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. >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. >> 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 "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 >>> 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. >>>> 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.... SignatureScott in Florida 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 >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? 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? 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 |
Reply to this Message |
 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.