 |
 | 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 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message