 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2005Toyota/Honda vs American
There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new thread. There was discussion about buying Lexus versus Lincoln. One of the things that I realized is that, more or less, Toyota/Honda vehicles are priced by the market, both new and used, as if the car will last 150,000 miles while American vehicles are generally priced as if the vehicles will last 100,000 miles. Meaning that at 50,000MI, a Honda/Toyota will still be worth about 2/3 of the original price while an American vehicle will be worth about half. This is merely a very rough rule of thumb, but something I've noticed. Even new, the US vehicles can't be sold unless Detroit rebates it's way to a sale, so the "out the door" price is much less than the "out the door" price of a Toy/Hon. Even though the sticker prices are similar. Again, this seems to reflect that the market assumes the Toy/Hon will go 150,000 miles before major trouble vs merely 100,000 for the US vehicle. My point is that buying similar sized-categorized vehicles from Toy/Hon vs US is no longer an apples to apples comparison. (I realize that many vehicles go 200,000 to 300,000 miles...maybe more....of both American and Japanese build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about 50% longer). > There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just > run [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > about > 50% longer). Good description in a nutshell!  SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences over the years. That is after all what we are expressing here, opinions. I happen to own a 1971 Pinto, that I purchased new in 1970. It has lasted for a lot more than you perceived 100K. There is currently 298,000 miles on the clock and all original. The only repairs have been s clutch at 210K and a Carbon and valve job in February. I own a half dozen old cars that I take to old cars shows. I see old cars for the US, England, Germany, even Italy but I have never seen any Japanese cars from the seventies at any of those shows let alone one with the 150K you believe they will exclusively achieve. All manufactures build some on occasion that are not up to their build standards for the class in which they compete, that is why the all have a warranty. From what we see in our fleet service business, that services nearly every brand on the market, is that ANY brand on the market today will easily run 200K and more if properly serviced. That is not an opinion but a fact and we have the records to support that conclusion. The only real difference we see in todays vehicles is style and price, period. I prefer a particular style of vehicle and that is RWD and V8 powered. I want to buy those that will cost me the least amount of money to replace every two years. That is my choice, others may chose differently and that is their privilege as well. mike hunt > There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run > too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about > 50% longer). Actually, you claim to have facts but they are merely antidotes. My numbers....actual transaction prices of new and used cars...is more FACTUAL. Those FACTS show that Japanese cars are priced to go about 50% longer than American cars. You may argue that the Japanese cars DON'T ACTUALLY go 50% more, and you MAY (but probably are not) be right. But my FACT, which is undisputable, is that the Japanese cars, both new and used, command a premium suggesting 50% longer miles per car. And I am talking about actual transaction-after-rebates prices. True, Taurus and Camry might have similar window stickers, but the only way to move the Taurus is to cut the price using rebates while Camry generally can be sold out at window sticker. Same for used....a 3 year old Taurus will lose 60% of it's value while a Camry will lose 35% (just guesses on THOSE numbers but you get my point). And regardless of what you say, the Pinto was just plain garbage. OK, you may have a rare, exceptional creampuff, but in the real world it was garbage. And, OK, the early 1970's Toyotas and CERTAINLY the early Hondas were junk too. And the Detroit Iron of that era, except for Pinto, Vega and Gremlin, was indeed generally good. But let's get off the ancient history here. Modern cars, priced by FACTUAL STATISTICS ACCORDING TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY, show the Japanese cars are priced to go about 150,000 miles while Detroit (or Mexican or Canadian) metal is only priced for 100,000 miles. If you honestly believe you can get the same mileage out of Detroit as you can out of Japan with no additional operating costs, then Detroit is the better deal for you. The market of millions and millions of vehicles suggests that the average American has learned otherwise. > You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to > disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> about >> 50% longer). That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to spend less to get a new car every two years, not more Glad you mentioned the Taurus. A two year old top of the line V6 Taurus actually returns MORE of it actual drive home price than a similar V6 Camry. Sure the Camry has a higher resale value than the Taurus, of about $4,000 according to NADA, but the Camry cost $6,000 more to drive home when new so you lost $2,000. When you trade Taurus on Taurus you save on the next one as well ;) mike hunt > My numbers....actual transaction prices of new and used cars...is more FACTUAL. > Those FACTS show that Japanese cars are priced to go about 50% longer than > American cars. <snip> I am talking about actual > transaction-after-rebates prices. True, Taurus and Camry might have similar > window stickers, but the only way to move the Taurus is to cut the price > using rebates while Camry generally can be sold out at window sticker. ,snip> > > You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to > > disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >> about > >> 50% longer). But you dump your Fords before the warranty expires MikeHunt. Probably a smart strategy. "Retains more of it's drive-home price" There you go lying again. Funny how your figures are never confirmed on Kelly or any other car price quoting service. Even if I liked Fords, the crap you post here ... the lying figures and distortions you continually post here .... would persuade me to buy another American brand car (assuming I was so disposed to buy American). BTW, a neighbor bought a new Ford 500. The car had to have a new steering rack at 4,000 miles. > That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, > to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >>>> vehicles to last about >>>> 50% longer). Actually I don't always dump my cars. Some I sell, but most of them go to family members. I know you find warranties to be important for some reason, I don't. One would think you would prefer a Korean cars since you look at warranties as part of your buying decision. Seems like you don't care if the car breaks down as long as you don't need to pay to fix it. I have not had a car, in more than twenty five years, that ever needed a warranty claim. I purchased imports every two years, as well, when I was buying imports. I changed cars every two years when the warranty was only 90 days or 4,000 miles. I don't base my decision on the length of the warranty but how much car can I get for my money. Check NADA, example; a V8 Ford Crown Vic LX has an MSRP of around 26K. A a top of the line V6 Camry XLE has an MSRP of around 29K. In two years the Crown Vic is worth around $17,500. The Camry is worth around $20,200 according to their published figures. Yet the drive home price of the Crown Vic is a lot lower than the Camry, as low as 19K. Which has the better resale value in you mind? I know what your mean about things going bad too soon. We has the same problem with a Corolla rack, just the other day. Like I said every manufactures makes a bad one now and then, that is why they all have a warranty. Personally I could not care less where you spend your money. If you want to spend more of it on Toyotas that's your business. mike hunt > But you dump your Fords before the warranty expires MikeHunt. Probably a > smart strategy. [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > >>>> vehicles to last about > >>>> 50% longer). You have said many times in the past that you turn your cars back in before the warranty is up. Changing your story again? I have never said that warranty was important. You're confused. Warranty is a sales tool ... this I have said. MOST of the rest of your post (below) is based on false recallections so I'll ignore it. When a person is directly involved with the UAW or a parts supplier to Ford/UAW, then that person is really obligated to own and drive a Ford. You are supporting your own economy by doing so. But the rest of us who have no direct ties (as described above) have no ethical allegence or responsibility for buying Ford (as is this example). For the rest of us, the choice is one of percieved value. > Actually I don't always dump my cars. Some I sell, but most of > them go to family members. I know you find warranties to be [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] >>>>>> vehicles to last about >>>>>> 50% longer). No I didn't say that you did. What I have said continuously is that I get a new car every two years, warranties aside. You are the one hung up on warranties not me. The fact remains, no matte for whom you work orif you own you own business, when one buys products made in their own country by their own corporation, as do the Japanese almost religiously, they are supporting their own economy. If one buys imported product or the products of foreign corporation they are NOT supporting their own economy, period. Is your money spend it where you wish, but forget the semantics, I could care less. mike hunt > You have said many times in the past that you turn your cars back in before > the warranty is up. Changing your story again? [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > >>>>>> vehicles to last about > >>>>>> 50% longer). Your dementia is advancing, my friend. You will find no evidence for your assertion. I'm the one who asks "Would I buy this car As-Is .... no warranty?" Your next point has merit only to the extent a county's economy becomes socialist. At present, do you think the American economy is socialist? > No I didn't say that you did. What I have said continuously is > that I get a new car every two years, warranties aside. You are [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] >>>>>>>> Toy/Hon vehicles to last about >>>>>>>> 50% longer). Never had a car in 20 years requiring a warranty claim? You just lost ANY and ALL credibility with me. That's like saying you don't require air and water to live. > Actually I don't always dump my cars. Some I sell, but most of > them go to family members. I know you find warranties to be [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] >> >>>> vehicles to last about >> >>>> 50% longer). I suppose technically you are correct. The free scheduled maintenance, included in the warranty on the Lincoln, is a warranty claim. However I have never had a product failure. ;) mike hunt > Never had a car in 20 years requiring a warranty claim? You just lost ANY > and ALL credibility with me. That's like saying you don't require air and [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > >> >>>> vehicles to last about > >> >>>> 50% longer). Never having a product failure is different than never having a warranty claim. And even the "no product failure" I find hard to believe unless you define it as never dying when driving or needed to be driven. That I MIGHT believe. >I suppose technically you are correct. The free scheduled > maintenance, included in the warranty on the Lincoln, is [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] >> >> >>>> vehicles to last about >> >> >>>> 50% longer). AND, he expects you to believe that crap about FORDS! > Never had a car in 20 years requiring a warranty claim? You just lost > ANY and ALL credibility with me. That's like saying you don't require [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] >>>>>>> vehicles to last about >>>>>>> 50% longer). The cars I had twenty years ago were Toyotas. LOL mike hunt > AND, he expects you to believe that crap about FORDS! > > > Never had a car in 20 years requiring a warranty claim? You just lost > > ANY and ALL credibility with me. That's like saying you don't require > > air and water to live. I cannot imagine that a 2 year old Taurus or similar brings nearly the % as a 2 year old Hon/Toy. > That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, > to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >> >> about >> >> 50% longer). It does not. Check the Kelly Bluebook website and get price quotes for both cars, comparably equipped when new, equal mileage, equal engines (be sure you note that Ford stuffs a pushrod low output V6 in the Taurus as a base engine while an overhead cam V6 in the Ford is an upgrade that Camry comes standard with. > I cannot imagine that a 2 year old Taurus or similar brings nearly > the % as a 2 year old Hon/Toy. [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] >>>>> last about >>>>> 50% longer). Me thinks if you look under the hood of 80% of Camrys you will find a 4 cy engine. ;) mike hunt > It does not. Check the Kelly Bluebook website and get price quotes for both > cars, comparably equipped when new, equal mileage, equal engines (be sure [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > >>>>> last about > >>>>> 50% longer). Yeah but that wasn't his point. He was trying to compare the PRICES of an apples to apples scenario. It makes no difference that most people opt for the Camry 4 cylinder and the Taurus 6. His POINT was the huge price differential of AS SIMILAR AS POSSIBLE used cars. > Me thinks if you look under the hood of 80% of Camrys you will > find a 4 cy engine. ;) [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] >> >>>>> last about >> >>>>> 50% longer). Using that logic why not compare the Taurus to a Corolla? The point is the price one must pay to buy similarly equipped vehicles, that means the Camry that must be compared is the V6, since Taurus is not available with a 4 cy in its lowest priced model. A V6 over the 4 cy adds to cost of a Camry so the higher end model must be used to make any comparison. ;) mike hunt > Yeah but that wasn't his point. He was trying to compare the PRICES of an > apples to apples scenario. It makes no difference that most people opt for [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > >> >>>>> last about > >> >>>>> 50% longer). You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a pushrod V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC engine. DOHC Taurus (optional engine) has to be selected for LIKE comparison. > Using that logic why not compare the Taurus to a Corolla? The > point is the price one must pay to buy similarly equipped [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] >>>>>>>>> vehicles to last about >>>>>>>>> 50% longer). > You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a pushrod > V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC engine. DOHC Taurus > (optional engine) has to be selected for LIKE comparison. I'd personally consider the non-DOHC Taurus to be equivalent to a Camry with a 4 cylinder engine as the Taurus is such a slug in stock form. > You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a pushrod > V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC engine. DOHC Taurus > (optional engine) has to be selected for LIKE comparison. I think you are both wrong. It is irrelevant whether the vehicle has a 4 or a 6, OHV or OHC. What matters is the realtivel performance (including things like engine smoothness, performance, ease of maintenance, etc.). Just sitting in a Taurus tell you it is "more" car. And the OHV Taurus 6 is smoother and more powerful than the OHC Camry 4. However, I am sure many people feel that the Camry is a better value for whatever reason. According to CR, a 4 cyliner 2005 Camry LE has a zero to 60 of 9.7 sec. A 2004 OHC Taurus had a zero to 60 of 8.3 sec. So, I'd say it is not fair to comapre the 4 cylinder Camry to the OHC Taurus if performance is your criteria. Clearly the base model Taurus is a far better "value" than the base model Camry. If you put much faith in CR's little circles, both the 2004 Taurus and 2004 Camry got excellent marks. On CU's 150 mile trip, the 4 cylinder Camry averaged 28 mpg, the larger and much faster Taurus averaged 26. I doubt that many people buying a Camry will care about this. Ed >> You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a >> pushrod V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think you are both wrong. It is irrelevant whether the > vehicle has a 4 or a 6, OHV or OHC. snip >Ed Any cost comparisons must be done with like drivelines in place. Or do you disagree with that? > >> You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a > >> pushrod V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Any cost comparisons must be done with like drivelines in place. Or do you > disagree with that? I am not sure what you mean. I don't think a 4 cylinder Camry can be compared to a 6 cylinder Taurus. The Taurus is larger, costs less, and performs better. If you are comparing the two based on published specifications, only an idiot would buy the 4 cylinder Camry. If you drive them, well only the idiot would buy the 4 cylinder Camry (or a Toyotphile, or a CU drone). Ed > > >> You tell the same lie time and time again with your comparison of a > > >> pushrod V6 Taurus vs a V6 Camry which is a more complext DOHC [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Toyotphile, or a CU drone). > Ed Only an idiot would...?? Let's look at published specifications... Why not compare drivetrains that should offer similar performance? The DOHC VVTi 2.4L in-line 4 Camry engine is rated at 160hp at 5700rpm, 163ft-lbs torque at 4000rpm. The OHV 3.0L V6 Taurus engine is rated at 153hp at 4900rpm, 185ft-lbs torque at 3950rpm. The Taurus weighs 3306lbs. The Camry weighs 3150lbs. Add a 160lb driver and the Taurus is pushing along 22.7 lbs per hp. The Camry is pushing along 20.7 lbs per hp. That's fairly similar with a slight edge to the Camry. The 4-cylinder in the Camry, of course, may cost less to maintain. It certainly uses fewer plugs but it might also be easier to work around a narrower in-line 4 block than around a V6 block, so other maintenance may be cheaper, too. I am surprised to notice that the list price on the stock Camry is about $2k less than the Taurus. Ford, of course, may be doing all kinds of givebacks, etc., to push the Taurus but the Camry does seem to have a $2k head start. The Toyota dealer assured me I'd pay less than list for a new Camry when I bought a used car from him a couple of weeks ago. When you say the Tarus is larger, you're right in terms of exterior dimensions (Taurus is about 10 in. longer) but that larger on the outside only makes the car harder to park. All interior dimensions were within an inch of each other (some wins to Taurus, some to Camry). The features list seems very comparable. Notable feature differences are: the Taurus has a trip computer while the Camry has a more completely adjustable driver's seat; the Taurus will tow 1250 lbs but the Camry can do a little better at 2000 lbs. Let's take a look at depreciation... I checked CarSoup.com for 2001 Tauruses and Camrys. The bulk of the Camrys are offered for sale at $14-15K. The bulk of the Tauruses are offered for sale at $8-9K (mileages mostly fell within 40-50K range for both). Granted, this is not the market value, per se. Let's check Edmunds again and they're suggesting the cheaper Camry models are $9335 vs the cheaper Taurus models at $7115. We'll use Edmunds as our guide, again and presume the Camry is worth $2K or so more after 4 years.. Without getting into maintenance costs, let's look at which car is likely to cost me less. Let's drive 50K miles over 4 years, 20K in town and 30K on the highway an then sell it: Car Purchase Plus_Fuel Less_Resale Total_4_yr Taurus 21,000.00 4,222.22 7,115.00 18,107.22 Camry 19,000.00 3,431.37 9,335.00 13,096.37 Sooo... let's see. Nearly equal performance, very similar features and room, Camry's 4-year cost is projected to be $5K less... Suuure... only an idiot would buy a Camry. Unless you get a LOT of givebacks from Ford. All figures are from Edmunds.com, except advertised prices which are from CarSoup.com. Anybody know the actual 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the 200 52.4L Camry and the 2005 3.0L Taurus? I found "ReasearchYourCar.com" listed a 16.9 sec 1/4 mile and a 9.1 sec 0-60 for the 2004 Camry and a 9.2 sec 0-60 for the 2004 Taurus. However, the engine power and fuel mileage ratings were a little different from the figures Edmunds gives for the current year, so some tweaking could have occurred between 2004 and 2005. > Why not compare drivetrains that should offer similar performance? The DOHC > VVTi 2.4L in-line 4 Camry engine is rated at 160hp at 5700rpm, 163ft-lbs > torque at 4000rpm. The OHV 3.0L V6 Taurus engine is rated at 153hp at > 4900rpm, 185ft-lbs torque at 3950rpm. The Taurus weighs 3306lbs. The > Camry weighs 3150lbs. Add a 160lb driver and the Taurus is pushing along > 22.7 lbs per hp. The Camry is pushing along 20.7 lbs per hp. It's even worse. The Taurus V6, IIRC, can't be had with stick, which is a big problem. GM has this as well - that the gearing is so tall that it's literally *impossible* during normal driving to ever push the engine over 3500rpm. That 153HP is very close to Redline, which is roughly 65mph in second gear, or about 90mph in third. Given that the engine will shift at least a thousand RPM sooner than the maximum HP rating(3900rpm or so no matter how you flog it), that means about 120 actual HP. GM is the same - 180HP advertized and maybe 140hp that's ever actually useable. I've driven both and it's completely fair to compare the V6 to the 4 if they both have automatics, due to Toyota's actually intelligent gearing ratios. OTOH, the Toyota 4 with stick is a rocket compared to the Ford V6 in actual driving(not just a 0-60 flog the transmission and engine test). >> Why not compare drivetrains that should offer similar performance? The >> DOHC VVTi 2.4L in-line 4 Camry engine is rated at 160hp at [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > a rocket compared to the Ford V6 in actual driving(not just > a 0-60 flog the transmission and engine test). Only tangentally relevant, my '03 Corolla shifts out of 2nd at 6k rpm @ 72 mph. 3rd gear at 6k rpm @ 110 mph indicated. OD only goes to 113 when the vehicle speed governor kicks in. These are the max shift points with the pedal on the floor. Signature- Philip DH, 5/2/2005, 2:58:47 PM, <1115060364.28f6ff827ddfb1cf627d8dc07356157e@teranews> wrote: [snipped] > Car Purchase Plus_Fuel Less_Resale Total_4_yr > Taurus 21,000.00 4,222.22 7,115.00 18,107.22 > Camry 19,000.00 3,431.37 9,335.00 13,096.37 > > Sooo... let's see. Nearly equal performance, very similar features > and room, Camry's 4-year cost is projected to be $5K less... [snipped] You put a lot of effort and research into this post. But shouldn't the current Camry be compared to a Ford 500 instead? I thought the Taurus has been discontinued and its successor is the 500. SignatureNo matter what happens, someone will find a way to take it too seriously. > DH, 5/2/2005, 2:58:47 PM, > <1115060364.28f6ff827ddfb1cf627d8dc07356157e@teranews> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You put a lot of effort and research into this post. I appreciate you taking that extra moment to find a kinder and gentler way to say "Don't you have a life?" :-) > But shouldn't the > current Camry be compared to a Ford 500 instead? I thought the Taurus > has been discontinued and its successor is the 500. I hadn't thought about that. I guess I'd say that what a particular car competes with, exactly, is different in the mind of each buyer. The Five Hundred is a little more expensive (extra $2k or so at list over the Taurus) and a little larger (a few inches taller and longer; 300 lbs heavier, 500 lbs heavier if AWD) than the Taurus but it could certainly be considered an alternative to the Camry by some buyers. I suppose it may come down to discounting. If Ford is having trouble pushing the Five Hundred and discounts it steeply enough, buyers will more readily look at it as an alternative to the Camry - and some other things. I expect Ford would prefer to position it as an alternative to the Avalon but I'm sure they're not going to turn away buyers because they were originally thinking Camry! On the Ford Taurus entry, Edmunds has a pointer to see "2006 Future Vehicle," so I guess the Taurus isn't superseded by the Five Hundred, so a Camry-Taurus comparison is probably reasonable. Certainly, if you plan to buy a car before September, the comparison would be valid. By the way, I think the Five Hundred is a very good looking car (*). And Ford has given it a DOHC V6, which is nice; extra 50hp, very nice. Still, Edmunds doesn't say that it has Variable Valve Timing, which is a little disappointing. And I'm not going to do a dimension-by-dimension comparison (working on that "life" thing) but I glanced at the specs the only number that stands out as "that's bigger" is the trunk space: 21 cu ft on the Five Hundred vs 17 for the Taurus and Camry. (*) - Also something peculiar to the mind of each buyer. One of my friends thinks the Chysler 300 is the best-looking car on the market and I think it's the second ugliest. No, you have to use what was on the market 4 years ago, because there is no 4 year data for the 500 yet. In other words, you only have data in the rear view mirror. And a new Camry comes out next year. So while it's true that a new bodystyle will probably retain a higher % of price paid, that "new bodystyle" thing alternates. You have to pick a year and stick with it. Also, the 500 might have a higher resale value but since it's new might also cost more upfront. We just don't know yet. > DH, 5/2/2005, 2:58:47 PM, > <1115060364.28f6ff827ddfb1cf627d8dc07356157e@teranews> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > current Camry be compared to a Ford 500 instead? I thought the Taurus > has been discontinued and its successor is the 500. > No, you have to use what was on the market 4 years ago, because there is > no 4 year data for the 500 yet. In other words, you only have data in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it. Also, the 500 might have a higher resale value but since it's new > might also cost more upfront. We just don't know yet. I heard on the radio recently that Ford dealers are selling all the AWD versions of the 500 they can get while the FWD versions are not selling as well. The report mentioned that the limitation to selling more AWD versions is the getting the AWD hardware, which is made by their Volvo division. I have always felt that an AWD sedan in that size range would be a good seller. The competition tends to be either SUV's, Subaru, or higher priced. Non-Subaru AWD sedans in that size range that come to mind are the Audi A6 and A8, Mercedes E and S class 4Matics, the Acura (RL? TL?), Lexus GS, and Volvo. I think Toyota missed the boat by not continuing to offer AWD Camrys and Corollas or introducing an AWD Avalon. The Camrys and Corolla All-Tracs were not well-promoted and so most of the public doesn't know that they ever existed. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply >> No, you have to use what was on the market 4 years ago, because there is >> no 4 year data for the 500 yet. In other words, you only have data in the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > were not well-promoted and so most of the public doesn't know that they ever > existed. What about Tercel? I'd buy a 4WD erc wagon all over again (um, even tho the one I have was GIVEN to me!) The All-Trac Corolla wagon was good, too. I still see a LOT of them buzzing around, but they're getting rusty. There is one I see that is MINT, tho... >>> No, you have to use what was on the market 4 years ago, because there is >>> no 4 year data for the 500 yet. In other words, you only have data in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > buzzing around, but they're getting rusty. There is one I see that is > MINT, tho... Tercel Wagons were also good cars, although the clinometer on the dash was a little hokey. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply Your information is incorrect. The Taurus is still available as a 2005 model. The Ford that will replace the Taurus is the 2006 Futura, that comes out in September. It will be available with a 4 cy and a V6, in FWD or AWD. The expected price range is 19K for the FWD 4cy to 25K for the V6 AWD models The Avalon is the Toyota that compares to the 500 in size, not the Taurus. The 500 is a bit larger in all dimensions than the Avalon and the 500 has a much lager trunk. The trunk in the 500 is even larger than the trunk in the Crown Vic. The only comparison that can be made between the 2005 Camry and the 2005 500 is in price, however for the price of a V6 FWD Camry one can buy a V6 500 with AWD. Even when one includes the current $750 rebate that is available in the Philadelphia area on the FWD only Camry, it still costs more than AWD the 500. The 500 has never had a rebate mike hunt > No, you have to use what was on the market 4 years ago, because there is no > 4 year data for the 500 yet. In other words, you only have data in the rear [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > No matter what happens, someone will find a way to take it too > > seriously. YET > Your information is incorrect. The Taurus is still available as > a 2005 model. The Ford that will replace the Taurus is the 2006 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> > No matter what happens, someone will find a way to take it too >> > seriously. Edmunds.com says there's already a $1K dealer incentive. Not exactly a rebate but it does allow the dealer to take an extra $1K off to move the car. Works out the same for the customer. There's also $500-$750 rebates for college grads and other loyalty programs - they hardly count. > YET [snip] The > > 500 has never had a rebate Irrelevant. You have to compare 'like' cars. > Me thinks if you look under the hood of 80% of Camrys you will > find a 4 cy engine. ;) [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] >>>>>>> to last about >>>>>>> 50% longer). I agree. that's' why they have to be the top of the line V6s, Taurus does not offer a 4cy.. ;) mike hunt > Irrelevant. You have to compare 'like' cars. > > > Me thinks if you look under the hood of 80% of Camrys you will > > find a 4 cy engine. ;) > > > > mike hunt And when Ford DID fit a four cylinder into the Taurus ... it was a piece of headgasket blowing oil burning sh.t. LOL Actually, there is also an entry level 24 valve V6. > I agree. that's' why they have to be the top of the line V6s, > Taurus does not offer a 4cy.. ;) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> mike hunt Like I said. When you run out of points that can support your side of the discussion, you change the subject. ;) mike hunt > And when Ford DID fit a four cylinder into the Taurus ... it was a piece of > headgasket blowing oil burning sh.t. LOL Actually, there is also an entry [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >>> > >>> mike hunt > And when Ford DID fit a four cylinder into the Taurus ... it was a piece of > headgasket blowing oil burning sh.t. LOL Actually, there is also an entry > level 24 valve V6. Actually I don't think the 2.5L 4 cylinder was noted for blowing head gaskets or burning oil. It was noted as being under powered for a car as large as the Taurus, so I can agree that it was a POS. Plus it only came with a three speed automatic (or a five speed manual) vs the 4 speed automatic you got with the 6 cylinder. I think it was mostly intended as a low price point / high mpg option. And in the end, it got only slightly better gas mileage. I think it was dropped mostly because it made no sense as an option economically and after the first year was ordered in very small numbers. I think Toyota owners are far more willing to put up with slow noisy 4 cylinders than Ford owners. I personally owned a 1986 Mercury Sable. I'd rate it as one of the best cars I ever owned. Brand new in 1986 it cost less than my ex's 1983 Cressida when new in 1983 and it was a superior car in every way (ride, noise, room, price, reliability). After comparing the Cressida to he Sable, I could never understand how Toyota could sell cars at all. The Cressida was such a disgusting POS, I still have negative feeling about Toyota. Ed Search nadaguides.com, you will find it returns a higher percentage of the drive home price, not the same ;) mike hunt > I cannot imagine that a 2 year old Taurus or similar brings nearly the % as > a 2 year old Hon/Toy. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > >> >> about > >> >> 50% longer). Did that. Doesn't support your claim. > Search nadaguides.com, you will find it returns a higher > percentage of the drive home price, not the same ;) [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] >> >> >> about >> >> >> 50% longer). I just used NADAguide.com to compare 2002 Taurus (ohc V6) and Camry V6 (ohc V6) base models with 36000 miles. Taurus 11,425 retail .... Camry 14,800 retail values. So maybe you need to explain you secret little "drive home price" to the readership. > Search nadaguides.com, you will find it returns a higher > percentage of the drive home price, not the same ;) [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >>>>>> to last about >>>>>> 50% longer). The drive home price is the price one must pay to drive home a new vehicle, not the selling price. MSRP plus dealer installed or required option or other fees or add-ons, all taxes, transfer fees and interest on the loan, LESS discounts from manufacture and/or dealer, rebates and incentives, and trade price. Those things that can vary greatly from dealer to dealer even if the selling price is the exactly the same on the exact same car. For cash buyers the amount of your check, less trade if you have one. For finance buyers the total of ones monthly payments less any down money or trade. That is what one is really paying to buy any vehicle. The 2002 Camry you describe cost at least $5,000, maybe more to drive home than that Taurus. When my one son priced a 2004 loaded Taurus with an Accord it was over $5,500 more and the trade price $2,000 less. The Camry was almost $7,000 more and the trade price was $2,500 less to drive home. He bought a Sable for even less than the Taurus. Foreign car dealers try to steal domestic on the trade price to boot, making it worse for those with a domestic trade looking to switch. mike hunt > I just used NADAguide.com to compare 2002 Taurus (ohc V6) and Camry V6 (ohc > V6) base models with 36000 miles. Taurus 11,425 retail .... Camry 14,800 > retail values. > > So maybe you need to explain you secret little "drive home price" to the > readership. It costs money to trade up. And besides, the Kelly Book and NADA make it paifully clear a used Taurus is a sorry sight at trade-in time. > The drive home price is the price one must pay to drive home a > new vehicle, not the selling price. MSRP plus dealer installed [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> So maybe you need to explain you secret little "drive home price" to >> the readership. Once again you fail to consider the new car price, in an effort to prove your discredited opinion. The fact remains, as a percentage of the actual drive home price the Taurus return more of its original price than does the Camry, by several thousand dollars, not less. The average new car buyer in the US, who replaces his new car with another new car in three to four years, that buys a Taurus and replaces it with another new Taurus will spend far less to buy the first Taurus and every one thereafter than a buyer who purchases a Camry, and buys another, no matter how many ways you try to spin that fact. LOL mike hunt > It costs money to trade up. And besides, the Kelly Book and NADA make it > paifully clear a used Taurus is a sorry sight at trade-in time. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > mike hunt Only your -wishful thinking- remains. Your corner of the world is very very different than California. Looking around here, one wonders if Ford even makes cars anymore. > Once again you fail to consider the new car price, in an effort > to prove your discredited opinion. The fact remains, as a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>> >>> mike hunt > Only your -wishful thinking- remains. Your corner of the world is very very > different than California. Looking around here, one wonders if Ford even > makes cars anymore. I notice that you get two types out here in California - the first time buyer of a Ford who doesn't know any better and the Mustang/truck crowd. Ford does almost as bad as GM with repeat customers.(though both are better than Chrysler) At least you are consistent. When you run out of points to support your side of the discussion, always change the subject. ;) mike hunt > Only your -wishful thinking- remains. Your corner of the world is very very > different than California. Looking around here, one wonders if Ford even [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >>> > >>> mike hunt Actually, it you ... with all your various screen name and log-in accounts who can't keep a thought process coherent from one day to the next that makes it *seem* like the problem is mine. ;-) > At least you are consistent. When you run out of points > to support your side of the discussion, always change the [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>>> >>>>> mike hunt You're just jealous because you need to pay a monthly fee to an ISP and I don't ;) mike hunt > Actually, it you ... with all your various screen name and log-in accounts > who can't keep a thought process coherent from one day to the next that [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >>>>> > >>>>> mike hunt > The drive home price is the price one must pay to drive home a > new vehicle, not the selling price. MSRP plus dealer installed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > mike hunt Well, you've certainly proved the point. You claim the two cars (Taurus and Cambry) are comparable (let's not quibble over engines again). Then you said it costs FAR MORE to drive a Camry home than it costs to drive a Taurus home. Ergo, the MARKET says the Camry is worth far more than a Taurus, which is the point the original poster was making. If Ford could effectively charge what Toyota effectively charges for their comparable car, they'd do it. For some reason, they can't. The MARKET does not support them. The MARKET prices these two cars as though the Camry is far more valuable. Now, once you've gotten past that, if you choose, you may decide to argue whether or not the market is making a rational, fully informed decision (i.e, is the price differential justified by quantifiable factors?). I envy you your Ford experience. Had I had similar experiences with Ford, I'd might be driving one now. My fleet is two pretty old Volvos ('91, '93), two fairly recent Toyotas ('01 from new, '00 for a month) and a middle-aged Kia. So far, the Kia is the cost/month champ (largely because I got it at the right price). I once owned a Ford. I bought an Aerostar(*). We put three transmissions in it in a little over 2 years. One transmission lasted just 9 days. The Aerostar spent 45 days sitting in the shop in that time (other problems included severe oil leaks, two blown defroster motors, a mystery A/C problem that was never resolved or even acknowledged and a few other issues). The local Ford service was wretched and appeared entirely uninterested in customer satisfaction. (**) As it neared the end of the power train warranty, I called Ford to ask for an extension of the warranty on the transmission alone (the transmission had been replaced within the last few months). After I-forget-what rigamarole, I got somebody in Detroit on the phone and I asked for 30K miles on the transmission. "No, I can't authorize that," was the reply. I asked for 12K miles. "No, I can't authorize that," was the reply. "But," I asked, "you are authorized to say "No?" "That's right," I was told. So, I said, "This car has been a real nuisance, <yadda, yadda, yadda>. Can't I get some adjustment?" "No," was the reply. So, I asked, "Don't you care if I ever buy another Ford again?" "No, I'm not in Sales," was the reply. I got rid of it within a few days. Ford seemed to know the value of their product, too. I shopped it around for trade-ins and another nearby Ford dealer offered me the LEAST for it of any dealers that I checked. A few years later, a Taurus stranded my brother in TN, while he was heading for a vacation in Orlando. Transmission failure. In 2001, I bought a Toyota. I liked it better than the competing Ford, Chrysler and GM products (it was a little smaller but had more power, better fuel economy and a nicer interior), it was actually fairly comparable in price to the Chrysler and GM (I forget about the Ford - it wasn't really a serious consideration), was technologically more advanced (DOHC VVTi vs pushrod engines) and I had noticed my Toyota (and Honda) neighbors all praising the reliability of their cars. Since then, I've had just one minor problem with it (driver's power rearview mirror adjuster is balky - not bothered to fix). The Toyota dealer servicepeople treat me well (I've only seen them at the 15K, 30K and 45K service points, anyway) and maintenance costs at the dealer have been reasonable. No squeaks or rattles. Maybe the market knows lots of people like me. Maybe it knows people like this (I got a laugh out of the review by "take it to junkman"): http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/dodge/caravan/100000761/ratings_consumersdetail .html?dcr_usein=u&modelid=100000075&tid=edmunds.u.ratings_consumer.content..5.Do dge* Maybe the market has seen this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/consumerreports.pdf And maybe the market is being fairly rational. Around here, Mazda 626's and derivatives don't seem to command the prices the Camrys and Accords do. (*) - projected reliability is a big issue for me. The Aerostar had been in production, largely unchanged, for many years prior to my buying one. I figured the bugs would be worked out by that time. I was soooo wrong. (**) - the Ford dealer charged me two hours labor for a repair (defroster motor replacement) that I'd previously done myself in 45 minutes - and I have very little practice fixing cars and only basic tools. When I complained, they said that's what the book specifies, that's what they charge. This effectively made their labor rate in the neighborhood of $160/hour. Unless their guy was such an idiot that it took him two hours. I guess I can't rule that out. I think you are confused, as to my point, in this discussion. Most guys in the NG like to disparage all other brands, like mine is bigger than yours, kid stuff. Especially Ford vehicle even though Ford as indicated by it sales figures is proffered by far more buyers. Buyers are not stupid, they do not continue to buy anything over and over again, if it is actually junk. Guys tell you about their, or their 'friends' bad Fords, but there are many people that have similar experances with Toyota and other brands. I don't disparage Toyota or any other brand. I have always said from what we see in our business, all manufactures are building good vehicles today. They all make a bod few on occasion, that is why they all have a warranty. The only real difference we see, among the thousands of vehicles of different brands we service, is style and price. Indeed the market says the Camry is priced higher and its resale price is higher as well. It is the number one selling car in the US because more buyers are willing to pay the higher price that it commands. Guys in this NG will tell you it is the best car in the world. On the other had they will tell you that Fords are junk, yet the number one selling vehicle is not the Camry, it is the Ford F150 and has been for over 28 years, selling at a rate twice that of the Camry. The same people that say the Camry is better, looking at the sales, will say the F150 is jung regardless of the numbers. My position is that Toyotas, from what we see in our business servicing all brand, are great cars but way over priced. Particulary when one considers the majority of the parts that go into them are made in low wage countries with little or none of the constraints place on domestic manufactures in the US. American in the NG, and generally, that buy Toyotas try to rationalize their support of a foreign corporation that generally only asemble vehicles in the US and takes millions of dollars our to their own county tax free, by say they are better than other cars on the market.. We don't see that, and if a car sell for 20% to 30% more than its competators similar sized and priced cars, should it not be 20% to 30% better? We certainly do not see that in our shops. Many will argue that a Toyota lasts longer. They compare their current Toyota to some other brand that they owned years ago, perhaps even used, saying my 85 was a POS. No manufacture sells cars today like the ones they made ten years ago let alone twenty years ago.. If you ask them to compare the Toyotas of twenty years ago they say 'Oh that's different,' well it's not Even if, as some seem to believe, Toyota will go 150K to other 100K before a failure, that should make no difference to the average new car buyer in the US, who replaces his new car with another in three to four years with only 45k to 60k on the clock. Even an abused car can go 75K before a failure. I personally owned many Toyotas and Lexus vehicles. When I was still in retail I could buy any brand we sold at cost, and sell if off at the end of the year for more than I paid for them and we sold just about any brand. When I started my fleet service business I had to pay more for my vehicles. I discovered what the corporate fleets already knew. The true cost of vehicle ownership is how much one must spend to acquire the vehicle, the parts, the insurance, do the maintenance and repairs, and replace the vehicles they use as tools in their business. Corporations buy all types of vehicle form econobox to luxury car and from golf carts to big trucks. Ford Motor Company has around 80% of the corporate fleet business because their vehicles perform better at overall cost containment than any other brand, period. When I switched from Lexus to Lincoln the cost saving soon became obvious. Even for used car buyers, I do not see any advantage of buying a Toyota, at the premium prices they command. The dealer is making most of the money, not the person trading the car in any event. No dealer will give you a fair trade price for you Toyota, no matter what NADA says. Even if they did last longer before one needs to buy parts, the parts are extremely more expensive. What advantage is there to replacing a power steering pump at 150K for $1,000 over replacing one at 120K for $250? Buy what you wish, I have better places for my money than in a depreciating asset. mike hunt > > The drive home price is the price one must pay to drive home a > > new vehicle, not the selling price. MSRP plus dealer installed [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > $160/hour. Unless their guy was such an idiot that it took him two hours. > I guess I can't rule that out. > I think you are confused, as to my point, in this discussion. > Most guys in the NG like to disparage all other brands, like mine > is bigger than yours, kid stuff. Especially Ford vehicle even > though Ford as indicated by it sales figures is proffered by far > more buyers. Ford *trucks* are decent. Ford *cars* are pathetic and need huge "rebates"(which are really fake nonsense as it only applies to the purchase of the vehicle) to sell them. Get real you must not have shopped for a new car lately. Every manufacture offers "rebates," including Toyota and Honda. What is a rebate really? I E The 2005 Grand Marquis, for instance, is the same car that sold in 2002 for 23K with $1,000 rebate. Ford raised the price from 02 to 05 by $4,000. The 2005 has a $3,000 rebate, you do the math. ;) mike hunt > > I think you are confused, as to my point, in this discussion. > > Most guys in the NG like to disparage all other brands, like mine [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > really fake nonsense as it only applies to the purchase of > the vehicle) to sell them. > Get real you must not have shopped for a new car lately. Every > manufacture offers "rebates," including Toyota and Honda. What > is a rebate really? I E The 2005 Grand Marquis, for instance, is > the same car that sold in 2002 for 23K with $1,000 rebate. Ford > raised the price from 02 to 05 by $4,000. The 2005 has a $3,000 > rebate, you do the math. ;) It's all a shell game. The Toyota rebates are kind of a new thing, though. They historically were in the $250-$500 range versus GM's thousands. How about the current Toyota ads on Philadelphia radio stations. "Any standard Toyota model, 2005 Car or truck, 1% over dealer bottom line." Offer expire 5/14 Doesn't include hybrids I guess ;) mike hunt > > Get real you must not have shopped for a new car lately. Every > > manufacture offers "rebates," including Toyota and Honda. What [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thing, though. They historically were in the $250-$500 range > versus GM's thousands. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:03:15 -0400, RustyFendo wrote: > The drive home price is the price one must pay to drive home a > new vehicle, not the selling price. MSRP plus dealer installed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > mike hunt Resist the urge to buy the Taurus with the 'bigger' motor, the 3.8. This has to be the WORST engine Ford has ever foisted upon the American (CAnadian?) public! Expect it to blow the HG on the back bank around 120,000, pretty much guaranteed! Of course, by then you're out of warranty, so too bad. For the original owner who trades it in every 2-3 years and does average mileage, this is a GREAT car! Pity the 2nd owner. If you plan on buying one for the Long Haul, the 3.0 Litre may not be as spunky, but you'll save marginally on gas and only need to worry about BHGs when you fail to flush the cooling system every 40,000 and overheat the engine. Honestly, other than that, I would take either a Camry or a Taurus. We've had a couple with 160,000 miles here that ran great, and I can't see any reason why they won't hit 200K easily. Now, on the other hand, my 3.0 litre Supra also has a 'bad' motor, with almost a guarantee that it will suffer a BHG right around where mine is now (170,000). Same thinking: this car will last the original owner it's expected time of ownership, and the second or third owner will have to deal with it, out of warrantee. This is the kind of thinking I EXPECT from Ford or GM, but NOT from Toyota! >> I just used NADAguide.com to compare 2002 Taurus (ohc V6) and Camry V6 (ohc >> V6) base models with 36000 miles. Taurus 11,425 retail .... Camry 14,800 >> retail values. >> >> So maybe you need to explain you secret little "drive home price" to the >> readership. I know most of you guys are primarily used car buyer but the 3.8 was a good engine that was around, trouble free for many years, in millions of Fords. It was the victim of the loss of asbestos to industry, like the engines of other manufactures, as well. I any event it has not been available in the Taurus for many years. mike hunt > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:03:15 -0400, RustyFendo wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >> So maybe you need to explain you secret little "drive home price" to the > >> readership. > That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, > to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > $6,000 more to drive home when new so you lost $2,000. When you > trade Taurus on Taurus you save on the next one as well ;) Extend that to five years, or the typical car loan these days, and it's a whole other story. OTOH, I will say that a Crown Vic is the best used deal out there. Thanks to the silly numbers in fleet service and killed and abused to death my police departments, the thing looses 50% of its value in three years, making it only beat by KIA and Hyundai for worst resale value. Yet, a 3-5 year old one that wasn't beaten to death(private party) is a great deal. 6-8K for a nearly new car with a V8. I agree that a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car (Panther platform car) can go similar to the Japanese vehicles in mileage and with similar durability. You're right that a 2-3 year old one is a very very good deal. And my brother's 2003 Town Car gets 18 MPG in the city on cheap gas. Maybe it's because it was designed in 1978 or so! >> That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, >> to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Yet, a 3-5 year old one that wasn't beaten to death(private > party) is a great deal. 6-8K for a nearly new car with a V8. Your premise is not correct. The CV and GM are made on the same chassis and the CV now even used the GM body. The T-Car is built on its own chassis but shares the engine and tranny. The newest chassis for each goes only back to the late nineties. There is today almost nothing still in common with the original Panther, or the original 83 Continental chassis from which the T-Car evolved, not even the engine, tranny or suspension. mike hunt > I agree that a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car (Panther platform car) can > go similar to the Japanese vehicles in mileage and with similar durability. > You're right that a 2-3 year old one is a very very good deal. And my > brother's 2003 Town Car gets 18 MPG in the city on cheap gas. Maybe it's > because it was designed in 1978 or so! Only in your opinion apparently, not according to NADA. The a average new car buyer in the US replaces their car with another new car ever three to four years, not five as you seem to think. But its your money spend it where you wish. ;) mike hunt > > That is fine if your goal is to spend more to buy your new car, > > to help the dealer and manufacture earn more money. I prefer to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Yet, a 3-5 year old one that wasn't beaten to death(private > party) is a great deal. 6-8K for a nearly new car with a V8. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:05:31 -0400, MelvinGibso wrote: > You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to > disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > class in which they compete, that is why the all have a > warranty. You mean, like just about any Ford from 1976-1982? > From what we see in our fleet service business, that > services nearly every brand on the market, is that ANY brand on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > replace every two years. That is my choice, others may chose > differently and that is their privilege as well. This goes beyond how many miles you can put on a car; like how well it goes while putting them on. I have had to do very, very little with my Toyotas to get them to 200,000 miles. One needed a water pump, one needed an alternator and a fuel pump. The latter still has the original clutch at 260,000 with teaching 2 wives and a daughter how to drive a stick. Sure, I have seen people get Fords to 250,000, but with a LOT of repairs. I'm still on the original ball joints in that second Corolla. And part of the reason you don't see older Toys at auto shows is that the cognizenti don't recognize them. They were good, cheap dependable transportation, nothing more. IMHO, I would rather go to a show where there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and 510's than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about >> 50% longer). You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a chance you will ever see all of them LOL mike hunt >I would rather go to a show where > there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and 510's > than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. > You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. > I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a > chance you will ever see all of them LOL > > mike hunt Old Corollas, Carinas, Coronas, Celicas, HiLux pickups, and Land Cruisers do pop up at collector events in California, only a matter of time before they start showing up at California shows. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply >>I would rather go to a show where >> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and 510's >> than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. Better hurry up they're 30 to 35 years old already. Most start appearing ten years sooner, when the part supply get slimmer ;) mike hunt > > You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. > > I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and 510's > >> than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. It's happening with increasing frequency here in southern CA, MikeHunt. The southwestern US is much kinder to the admittedly rust prone early Jap cars and trucks. And you will never see "all" of the American cars ever made on display either. > You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. > I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and >> 510's than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, than Japanese. Even as a percentage sold back then. ;) mike hunt > It's happening with increasing frequency here in southern CA, MikeHunt. The > southwestern US is much kinder to the admittedly rust prone early Jap cars [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and > >> 510's than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. Well duh. Now parrot something smart. > The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, > English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and >>>> 510's than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. > The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, > English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, > than Japanese. Even as a percentage sold back then. ;) > > mike hunt Early Toyotas and other Japanese cars were not known for their longevity. Japanese car styling at that time, with a few exceptions, was not going to catch the eye of car enthusiasts the way Detroit and German iron did either. IMO, people who collect and restore 70's vintage English and Italian cars do so to show off their patience and electrical and mechanical repair prowess or because they like the styling, not because those cars are examples of the best automotive engineering ever. <g> In the meantime, Toyota and the other Japanese makes have progressed very rapidly. I'll bet that in 10-20 years, it will be the Japanese cars showing up in collector's hands. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > > The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, > > English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > rapidly. I'll bet that in 10-20 years, it will be the Japanese cars showing > up in collector's hands. Name me three Japanese car that will excite collectors in 2025s. Maybe they sell something cool in Japan, but most of the Japanese cars offered to Americans are dull. I suppose an NSX might be worth having and some of the Z Cars, but do you really see people drooling over 20 year old Camry's? Ed I could give a rat's arse about collectability. I care about hassle free ownership with the longest term durability possible. >> > The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, >> > English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ed Long term durability? One can not collect cars that are no longer around to collect can they? ;) mike hunt > I could give a rat's arse about collectability. I care about hassle free > ownership with the longest term durability possible. Baloney. With millions of every model being sold every year, there are always a few of ANYTHING that will survive to collect. Sort of like people who smoke, drink and overeat living to be 100. Rare, but it does happen. > Long term durability? One can not collect cars that > are no longer around to collect can they? ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I could give a rat's arse about collectability. I care about hassle free >> ownership with the longest term durability possible. Really? How does that account for my friend who own a old "Borgward" that is around 45 years old? What determines how long one will keep an old car is not how many are sold new but, Generally, it is the price and availability of parts. I was able to find a used hydraulic pump, that needed a rebuild, for my 41 Continental but it cost me $500 plus $230 for the rebuild. ;) mike hunt > Baloney. With millions of every model being sold every year, there are > always a few of ANYTHING that will survive to collect. Sort of like people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > mike hunt >>> The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, >>> English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ed Any of our Big Three economy sedans make the grade? NO. >> > The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, >> > English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ed My guesses... From Toyota, MR2 & Solara Convertibles. From Scion, any first generation xA, xB, and tC. From Honda, the Sport 2000. From Nissan, Z cars. From Mazda, Miatas. From Subaru, WR-X. From Suzuki, Isuzu, and Mitsubishi, anything that is still running. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > My guesses... From Toyota, MR2 & Solara Convertibles. From Scion, any first > generation xA, xB, and tC. From Honda, the Sport 2000. From Nissan, Z > cars. From Mazda, Miatas. From Subaru, WR-X. From Suzuki, Isuzu, and > Mitsubishi, anything that is still running. I'd add a Celica GT to the list, too. > Name me three Japanese car that will excite collectors in 2025s. Some for different reasons than the others: Subaru WRX STi Mitsubishi EVO Nissan (and even Datsun) Z-cars - these already are. Mazda RX-7 & maybe the 8 Mazda Miata Certain versions of Toyota MR2 & Celica Supra Lexus SC Roadster The "real" Toyota Land Cruisers (not the luxury liners) Scion xB The original Honda and Toyota Hybrids Honda DelSol They're not Ferrari, but they could be collectable. Barry > > Name me three Japanese car that will excite collectors in 2025s. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Barry I am more interested in which cars will still be a good reliable, low cost car to own in 10 - 15 years to USE, not to look at. My 84 Corolla had 280K on it and was still a good car for the guy who bought it in 1994. My 94 Corolla has 180K on it now and there is little reason to get rid of it. The Pinto that my parents got me to commute to college had more service in the first 100K than all of the Hondas and Toyotas that I have had since combined. I believe that American cars have improved much over the Ford, but when I buy, I consider fuel economy, safety, insurance cost, parts costs, and repair tendencies and it seems clear to me that the Toyota has a value edge over the "American" car makers, and even over the Honda in most cases (though I do have a 2000 Odyssey). I'll likely buy a Matrix or Xa for my next car, mostly for my son to drive to college. I sure won't be getting a Focus or Aveo, and I don't plan to be putting it in a museum. Leonard > Name me three Japanese car that will excite collectors in 2025s. Maybe they > sell something cool in Japan, but most of the Japanese cars offered to > Americans are dull. I suppose an NSX might be worth having and some of the Z > Cars, but do you really see people drooling over 20 year old Camry's? Name three Buicks. Okay, name one. > Name me three Japanese car that will excite collectors in 2025s. Maybe they > sell something cool in Japan, but most of the Japanese cars offered to > Americans are dull. I suppose an NSX might be worth having and some of the Z > Cars, but do you really see people drooling over 20 year old Camry's? > > Ed One, for sure, will be the Miata. >> The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, >> English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > rapidly. I'll bet that in 10-20 years, it will be the Japanese cars showing > up in collector's hands. But even as a kid (and I mean 8-10 YO) I LOVED the quirky styling of the Japanese cars! I still remember the first time I saw a Suby 360: I must have been about 9. It was just so different from the Chevys and er, uh, Ramblers I rode around in as a kid! (You KNOW where we bought that Rambler!) Every time I saw a Jap car I went nuts. Then I saw You Only Live Twice. THAT really did it! Didn't take me long to figure out what that car was, and shortly after that I discovered the Bad Guys were driving a Crown. Oh, BTW, I really liked the Messerschmitts and Isettas, too... >>> The fact remains one will see a lot more domestics, German, >>> English and even Italian cars at old cars shows from, that area, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Oh, BTW, I really liked the Messerschmitts and Isettas, too... Let me know if you ever want to see a real 2000 GT and are willing to drive to southern Maine. I'll hook you up with a former co-worker who restores them. I don't know if he still has it, but he did have serial #1 at one time. My birth certificate shows my dad's occupation as a mechanic at a Hudson dealer in Chicago. My mom has a picture of me and my sister hanging out of a shiny Hornet. I remember visiting my dad when he worked at a Rambler dealer (back before it was taboo to let a 7 year old kid run around a shop). We had a 63 Ambassador and a 67 Ambassador and a parade of Nash Metros in our garage getting work done on weekends. Before Toyota, I had a 68 Mustang, great (read fast) car, sold it to a friend's sister. Next was a 72 Chevelle, Ok but not nearly as fast as the Mustang, it went away when a parked car jumped out in front of it at 2 AM. Next was a Mustang II (1975?) POS that got a rack, PS pump, & water pump before its 3rd birthday. Got rid of the Mustang II after about 6 months because it was too much work for a 75 Granada purchased from a friend of the family. Not too bad, steering was really vague. It pinged all the way to California, along with an alternator and voltage regulator replaced in a motel parking lot in Nebraska. Starter working for Toyota, first Toyota was a 79 Corolla SR5 fastback, most fun to drive car I've ever owned. Next was an 81 Tercel SR5 hatchback, then a 4x4 truck that had the roof ripped off under a low underpass on the delivery truck and repaired but sold used. After that was an 82 or 83 Corolla SR5 (the one with the pop-up headlights), then a move to Boston and 10 years of 5 or 6 company cars a year. Back to reality in '93, had to buy rides again, '92 Camry XLE, '97 Avalon, and LS 400. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > It's happening with increasing frequency here in southern CA, MikeHunt. The > southwestern US is much kinder to the admittedly rust prone early Jap cars > and trucks. And you will never see "all" of the American cars ever made on > display either. And, another guy told me yesterday, Arizona, where a Toyota will run until the engine drops, not because it rusted out of the frame like here in the NE. >> You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. >> I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and >>> 510's than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:00:09 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > You may prefer to but that is not ever going to happen. > I have never seen ANY of those cars at old cars shows let alone a > chance you will ever see all of them LOL And that IS a real shame, isn't it? these were the cars that started ALL manufacturers on a road to downsizing. After all, what was your Pinto competing with? An Impala? What was the Chevette aimed at? A Cadillac? The small Jap imports in the 70's and 80's had a LOT to do with shaping the future of the car industry. That ought to be recognized by more than corporate bean-counters... > mike hunt > >>I would rather go to a show where >> there were a bunch of nice old Corollas, Corona MKII's, Celicas and 510's >> than the usual Chevys and Fords I grew up with. > You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to > disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences > over the years. That is after all what we are expressing here, > opinions. I happen to own a 1971 Pinto, that I purchased new in > 1970. It has lasted for a lot more than you perceived 100K. > There is currently 298,000 miles on the clock and all original. This is only one car and we have to assume what you said is the complete truth. Even so, there are documented cases of two Volvo P1800s with over 1,500,000 miles (slightly more than your 298,000 miles). I can keep a car running in perfect mechanical condition while letting the interior and paint show its appropriate age - in others words the car looks like a POS but still runs. Does this describe your 1971 Pinto? These P1800s have had mechanical and interior/paint work - but they look like they were just driven off the showroom floor. > <Snip> From what we see in our fleet service business, that > services nearly every brand on the market, is that ANY brand on > the market today will easily run 200K and more if properly > serviced. That is not an opinion but a fact and we have the > records to support that conclusion. I couldn't agree more with you on this point. The only real difference we > see in todays vehicles is style and price, period. I prefer > a particular style of vehicle and that is RWD and V8 powered. I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about >>50% longer). >> You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I chose to >> disagree with your opinion however, because of my own experiences [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have had mechanical and interior/paint work - but they look like they > were just driven off the showroom floor. I had an 1800ES w/125,000 (just before I flipped it...OVER that is...) all I did was clean it. It did need a LOT of repair! But all I did to keep it looking good was wash, wax and clean the interior. If I hadn't put it on the roof I may still well be driving it... >> <Snip> From what we see in our fleet service business, that >> services nearly every brand on the market, is that ANY brand on [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about >>>50% longer). <snip> >> This is only one car and we have to assume what you said is the complete >> truth. Even so, there are documented cases of two Volvo P1800s with over [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it looking good was wash, wax and clean the interior. If I hadn't put it > on the roof I may still well be driving it... Less washing and waxing is required if, as they used to say in CB land, you keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down. Was it just the driver's seat that needed cleaning or were there passengers riding at the time? SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down. Was it just the driver's > seat that needed cleaning or were there passengers riding at the time? Yeah, I had a friend riding with me. The previous owner, a friend of mine, had also had an accident with the car, long before i met him. Damn thing liked to go for the driver! Crushed the left-hand side right down to the steering wheel! Luckily, Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > liked to go for the driver! Crushed the left-hand side right down to the > steering wheel! Luckily, Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... So that's why Volvo builds tanks! SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply >>Yeah, I had a friend riding with me. The previous owner, a friend of mine, >>had also had an accident with the car, long before i met him. Damn thing >>liked to go for the driver! Crushed the left-hand side right down to the >>steering wheel! Luckily, Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... > > So that's why Volvo builds tanks! Just about, or at least they did. My 75 164E I had in college was a great car and it even had side impact protection - actual bars in the doors to defect incoming damage. Two decades before it became a "must have" for Ford and GM. Thing was heavy, though - about 4000 lbs. I took out a couple of small brick walls with it parking over the years.(2-3 footers typical of parking lots - brakes weren't that long-lived with that much weight on them) > >>Yeah, I had a friend riding with me. The previous owner, a friend of mine, > >>had also had an accident with the car, long before i met him. Damn thing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bars in the doors to defect incoming damage. Two decades before > it became a "must have" for Ford and GM. This is not correct. Side impact protection (i.e., beams) were required for all cars to be sold in the US cars that were built after Janruary 1, 1973. Many US built cars had them as early as 1969. Ed > This is not correct. Side impact protection (i.e., beams) > were required for all cars to be sold in the US cars that > were built after Janruary 1, 1973. Many US built cars had > them as early as 1969. Isn't that what killed the VW Beetle in the USA? I seem to remember the old Beetle continuing to be sold for a long time after it no longer met US safety laws. Barry >> This is not correct. Side impact protection (i.e., beams) >> were required for all cars to be sold in the US cars that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Barry No. Meeting ever tightening emissions is what killed the air cooled Beetle. >>>> Yeah, I had a friend riding with me. The previous owner, a friend >>>> of mine, had also had an accident with the car, long before i met [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Go easy on Joey .... he's never firing on all cylinders. > There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run > too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it's way to a sale, so the "out the door" price is much less than the "out > the door" price of a Toy/Hon. MSRP is nonsense. What you pay is what you pay. This is exactly like those late night ads: "Plus if you act, now, we'll add in this electric cheese straightener (a $50 value!) for no extra charge..." I find it irksome that GM and Ford price their cars with a hugely inlfated MSRP in order to try to suggest that their cars are somehow in the league of the others, despite their actual 3-4K lower selling price. Exactly. The MSRP is just a starting point...a "wish" price. In the end Detroit has to gimmick and rebate those prices down to what will move the metal. So a Camry and a Taurus with similar equipment will ACTUALLY SELL for thousands of dollars different (Taurus less) because of the perceived "less miles-per-car" thing with the Ford. And this extends into the used car market as well. A Taurus with 100,000 miles is worth just a minimal "salvage" amount while a Camry is worth much more. Because the market figures the Taurus is "shot" at 100,000 mi...or is an expensive repair gamble at best. While the Camry is a good bet to get to 150,000 miles by average drivers with average maintenance and without extraordinary repairs. >> There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just >> run [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > in the league of the others, despite their actual 3-4K lower > selling price. > Exactly. The MSRP is just a starting point...a "wish" price. In the end > Detroit has to gimmick and rebate those prices down to what will move the > metal. So a Camry and a Taurus with similar equipment will ACTUALLY SELL for > thousands of dollars different (Taurus less) because of the perceived "less > miles-per-car" thing with the Ford. Compare a GM truck with a Tacoma or Tundra, or even a Titan or Frontier, as I recently did. GM had every rebate, financing incentive, "Smart Buy", 24 hour test drive, "Hot Button", you name it, on a similarly MSRP'd truck. This is done because they HAVE TO. <G> I bought the Tacoma with a slight discount ($25,500 on a sticker of $27,4-something as a cash buyer with no trade) from Toyota's MSRP, and a 6 week wait for the truck to arrive, as that's as good as it got with my local dealers. One dealer stated "the price is on it". I paid more for a Tacoma, because under close inspection the Colorado / Canyon wasn't even in the same league. Driving them made the difference even wider. I would have paid a similar price for the Frontier if I couldn't get the Tacoma. The Toyota salespeople actually let me leave the dealerships during negotiations without even taking my phone number. I wasn't used to that. Typically, every time you leave the price gets better, to the final price. Negotiating spanned two weeks and involved three dealerships. I typically keep vehicles cradle to grave. The GM product certainly seemed like that grave was a lot closer. It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL mike hunt > > Exactly. The MSRP is just a starting point...a "wish" price. In the end > > Detroit has to gimmick and rebate those prices down to what will move the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I typically keep vehicles cradle to grave. The GM product certainly > seemed like that grave was a lot closer. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:40:59 -0400, RustyFendo wrote: > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL Right. But this is a Toyota NewsGroup. You know what makes it a Toyota NG? Most of us are Toyota Owners. There are a couple Ford NewsGroups available. You are cordially invited to go talk about Fords there, if you wish... > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> I typically keep vehicles cradle to grave. The GM product certainly >> seemed like that grave was a lot closer. Read what you posted. You were the one running down a competitive brand in a Toyota NG, not me. I don't run down any brand in any NG. I was simply dispensing some sound advice, it is ones option to take or not. ;) mike hunt > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:40:59 -0400, RustyFendo wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >> I typically keep vehicles cradle to grave. The GM product certainly > >> seemed like that grave was a lot closer. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:44:15 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > Read what you posted. You were the one running down a competitive > brand in a Toyota NG, not me. I don't run down any brand in any > NG. I was simply dispensing some sound advice, it is ones option > to take or not. ;) Honest to God, I don't know half the time whether to laugh or slap you! But you DID tell the OP the Ford was a better buy, in a backhanded way. I like Toyotas MUCH better thatn Fords, but if I couldn't afford a Tacoma, I'd be looking for a Ranger. I have a nice Ranger right on the lot. You should come up and see it. If I remember correctly, you're only about 20 miles away.... Here's a hint: remember the German guy that had all the VW's right next door to the State Police? > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >> I typically keep vehicles cradle to grave. The GM product certainly >> >> seemed like that grave was a lot closer. Since perception is reality, why is Toyota percieved to be a better value to the private owner? > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL > > mike hunt Better value than what? Many more private owners choose the F150, by far, than any of Toyota trucks. In fact more so that ALL of Toyotas trucks and SUV's combined. ;) mike hunt > Since perception is reality, why is Toyota percieved to be a better value to > the private owner? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > mike hunt I will give credit where credit is due. In trucks, GM and Ford, especially keep the lead. And for the sake of those corporations and the US economy, I hope they retain it. I am NOT anti American! I WANT them to succeed. I was only pointing out that comparing same-category American vs Japanese cars is NOT apples to apples as was the original case when the Japanese started competing in earnest. Because you are basically comparing a 100,000 mile vehicle to a 150,000 mile vehicle and the market prices that according. ----- Original Message ----- > Better value than what? Many more private owners choose the > F150, by far, than any of Toyota trucks. In fact more so that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > >> > mike hunt > I will give credit where credit is due. In trucks, GM and Ford, especially > keep the lead. And for the sake of those corporations and the US economy, I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > competing in earnest. Because you are basically comparing a 100,000 mile > vehicle to a 150,000 mile vehicle and the market prices that according. My father has owned Buicks since about 1985(Olds before that, back when they were different cars) and the last four have made it to over 150K each. Mine I bought from him at 15 years old and it's still running fine as a second/beater commuter with 150K on it. My sister's is the 1988 with nearly 170K on it. It's just perception that they are "100K" cars, which is a good deal when you think about it. You can buy the GM version of the Toyota car(say a used Prism) for a lot less than a used Corolla. Same with the Vibe. Win-win situation. Now, Chrysler? 100K cars. Ford? Same deal. GM is much better that those two. I agree that there are exceptions to the "100,000 mile" perception, but it still is a perception that controls market pricing. As pointed out in another part of this thread, the big Ford products "Crown Vic/Gr. Marq/Town Car also fall into this category. >> I will give credit where credit is due. In trucks, GM and Ford, >> especially keep the lead. And for the sake of those corporations and the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Now, Chrysler? 100K cars. Ford? Same deal. GM is much better > that those two. I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well over 600K on the clock. ;) mike hunt > I agree that there are exceptions to the "100,000 mile" perception, but it > still is a perception that controls market pricing. As pointed out in > another part of this thread, the big Ford products "Crown Vic/Gr. Marq/Town > Car also fall into this category. Your taxi mention brings up another point. Cars deteriorate due to BOTH miles AND age. A 10 year old car with 10,000 miles might be a bigger headache than a 1 year old car with 90,000 miles. >I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well > over 600K on the clock. ;) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Marq/Town >> Car also fall into this category. Cars may get loose joints but I doubt they ever get headaches ;) I would prefer a car that is driven regularly over one that is not. I run my old cars at least once a month for at least 25 miles. mike hunt "D.D. Paler" wrote: > Your taxi mention brings up another point. Cars deteriorate due to BOTH > miles AND age. A 10 year old car with 10,000 miles might be a bigger [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> Marq/Town > >> Car also fall into this category. >>I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well >> over 600K on the clock. ;) > > Your taxi mention brings up another point. Cars deteriorate due to BOTH > miles AND age. A 10 year old car with 10,000 miles might be a bigger > headache than a 1 year old car with 90,000 miles. Moreover, who knows how much money these taxi companies fork out to keep these Crown Vics going? It is still cheaper to pay for these numerous repairs than to replace them every few years. >>>I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well >>>over 600K on the clock. ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > these Crown Vics going? It is still cheaper to pay for these numerous > repairs than to replace them every few years. Actually, not much. The thing is - the car is massively overbuilt(or properly built by 1960s-1970's standards) with heavier components and bigger than required auxiliary sytsems as it is sold mainly to police and taxi services. It's a tank because it has to be to survive that abuse. So actual costs to operate are pretty low if you factor out the horrid depreciation. I'm not so sure that depreciation is a big issue here for the Taxi companies, as many buy them USED with the big depreciation hit already in their favor. Police departments, however, generally have to buy them new. >>>>I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well >>>>over 600K on the clock. ;) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So actual costs to operate are pretty low if you factor > out the horrid depreciation. Exactly, DD. We the taxpayers ... fund the state and local purchases of *new* Crown Vics. > I'm not so sure that depreciation is a big issue here for the Taxi > companies, as many buy them USED with the big depreciation hit [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> So actual costs to operate are pretty low if you factor >> out the horrid depreciation. Although I am not sure depreciation is a big issue with police cars either. If they buy the new, and we are agreeing that Crown Vics are a good value and can go 200,000 miles with not too much repair dollars, then it doesn't matter that they are worth half in 2 years...because they can be kept for 5-7 years when ANY police car will be worth near zero. The only way depreciation would be an issue would be if they buy them new and flip them in 2-3 years with 30,000 to 50,000 miles. But I don't think ANY police department does that. Almost any car will depreciate to a small "near zero" residual value in 5-7 years and 200,000 miles...so it doesn't matter that the Crown Vic has a steeper curve than a Toyota here. The problem for average American's is they don't want to be tagged driving a Crown Vic!!!!! Then again, maybe the plaid pants set who drives from Cleveland to Florida every winter in their Crown Vic/Gr. Marq/Town Car knows something we don't! > Exactly, DD. We the taxpayers ... fund the state and local purchases of > *new* Crown Vics. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> So actual costs to operate are pretty low if you factor >>> out the horrid depreciation. >Although I am not sure depreciation is a big issue with police cars either. >If they buy the new, and we are agreeing that Crown Vics are a good value [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Then again, maybe the plaid pants set who drives from Cleveland to Florida >every winter in their Crown Vic/Gr. Marq/Town Car knows something we don't! Last time I called the Florida State Patrol and asked how long they kept their cars they said about 80K miles max... I doubt that is out of the ordinary.... -- Scott in Florida We service state police vehicles for six eastern states, as well as county and local departments. None are exactly the same. Patrol cars are as important to a police officer as his weapon. Therefore they are maintained is prime condition at all times. Because they receive the best of maintenance patrol vehicles, that easily accumulate 100K in a year or less, are in very good condition. I doubt any state would replace their cars in less than a year. There are many sold off around 100K but they are nearer five years old. Many are taken off patrol work, but retained to be used for lesser duties, like the duties generally assigned to FWD units. Most turn over RWD patrol vehicles in three years or 200k WOF. Others like those used for non patrol work are, generally, kept in service for five years or 300k. Smaller police departments, like corporations, keep them even longer. Five to ten years is the norm and again to 200k to 300K with 500K at the top end. One of my youngin's is a good example, she's a sergeant in the PSP that works under the Governors office. She is assigned an unmarked 2000 Impala state police car to commute to Harrisburg and to perform her duties. She only puts around 25K a year on her car and they are replacing it in 2006. She requested a CV because PSP regulations prohibit using FWD cars for patrol and she is being passed by extremely high speed driver on I-81 but can't stop them with her unit. mike hunt > >Although I am not sure depreciation is a big issue with police cars either. > >If they buy the new, and we are agreeing that Crown Vics are a good value [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Scott in Florida I inquired. Our PD turns their patrol units at 3 yrs or 120k miles. This is in sunny southern CA ... not your salt and sand anointed East. They use Crown Vics. Now the county Sheriff dept has a few RWD Impalas still in service as undercover and administrative cars. The ONLY reason this is so is because the department tried out a "refurbishment" program. These cars got a complete driveline and chassis rebuild including interior compartment components. What the department learned is they spent about 4/5ths of what a new unit would have cost but .... it *looks* to the public like the department is driving older vehicles which *looks* like the department is being economical. > We service state police vehicles for six eastern states, as well > as county and local departments. None are exactly the same. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> -- >> Scott in Florida > Exactly, DD. We the taxpayers ... fund the state and local purchases of > *new* Crown Vics. I wish I could buy a new CV for what fleets buy them. If you could, depreciation would not be an issue. THe NC High Ed Actually you can do better that any fleet. The current rebates on the CV are greater than the fleet discount. The fleet discount, for corporate fleets that have fleets of five or more vehicles, is $400. Governments gets a larger discount because they, generally, buy more of them at one time. Currently it is $900 on the CV and $500 on certain 'F' Series models. All fleet sales MUST go through a dealership and all dealerships are eligible to sell to fleets. Virtually All manufactures offer fleets a discount on certain, but not all models, of $400 to $600. Not all offer higher discounts to governments entities however. mike hunt > > Exactly, DD. We the taxpayers ... fund the state and local purchases of > > *new* Crown Vics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed Yeah and the fleets save by getting merely "baby moon" hubcaps and vinyl seats. Normal retail buyers won't accept those any more! > Actually you can do better that any fleet. The current rebates > on the CV are greater than the fleet discount. The fleet [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Ed The standard interior in the CV is cloth seats and carpeted flooring. The vinyl rear seat and rubber mats are an option on the P71 Interceptor. The base price of the Interceptor is higher, mot lower, than the base price of the civilian P72 CV, in any event ;) mike hunt > Yeah and the fleets save by getting merely "baby moon" hubcaps and vinyl > seats. Normal retail buyers won't accept those any more! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >> > >> Ed What about the "Palm Beach Edition" vinyl roof that is required in Florida along with plaid golf pants and parking at the Cheesecake Factory at 3:30PM for the EARLY BIRD dinner? > The standard interior in the CV is cloth seats and carpeted > flooring. The vinyl rear seat and rubber mats are an option on [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> >> >> Ed >What about the "Palm Beach Edition" vinyl roof that is required in Florida >along with plaid golf pants and parking at the Cheesecake Factory at 3:30PM >for the EARLY BIRD dinner? Damn...you spotted me!!!!!! -- Scott in Florida Yeah you, my parents and every other geezer down there! >>What about the "Palm Beach Edition" vinyl roof that is required in Florida >>along with plaid golf pants and parking at the Cheesecake Factory at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Scott in Florida > What about the "Palm Beach Edition" vinyl roof that is required in Florida > along with plaid golf pants and parking at the Cheesecake Factory at [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >>> >> >>> >> Ed 1960s-1970's standards? Where do you get your information and sale figures, from your dreams? The current CV technology is as up to date as anything on the road. Around 23% of new CV sales go to fleets, 8% of that goes to law enforcement. More than half the 'new' taxis one sees on the street in NYC are at least four years old, not new models. Get a life mike hunt > >>>I guess they do. There are CV taxis running around NYC with well > >>>over 600K on the clock. ;) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So actual costs to operate are pretty low if you factor > out the horrid depreciation. > 1960s-1970's standards? Where do you get your information and > sale figures, from your dreams? The current CV technology is as > up to date as anything on the road. I measnt it's built like they did back then. Much tougher all around, especiially in the drivetrain, since it is essentially purpose-built to be a police car. Actually the P71 model is the only model certified for police patrol duty. The other three models are not. mike hunt > > 1960s-1970's standards? Where do you get your information and > > sale figures, from your dreams? The current CV technology is as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all around, especiially in the drivetrain, since it is essentially > purpose-built to be a police car. > Now, Chrysler? 100K cars. Ford? Same deal. GM is much better > that those two. The Buick line seems to hold up reasonably well. But keep in mind that Buick has no equivalents to the Cavalier/Sunfire, Malibu, Grand Am, etc., which have had less than stellar reliability ratings. Buick has Rendezvous, which is merely a slightly prettier cousin of Aztek! Enough said! >> Now, Chrysler? 100K cars. Ford? Same deal. GM is much better >> that those two. > > The Buick line seems to hold up reasonably well. But keep in mind that > Buick has no equivalents to the Cavalier/Sunfire, Malibu, Grand Am, etc., > which have had less than stellar reliability ratings. It could be that the truck market sets a premium on buying American (maybe that's "buyin' 'Murcin") for reasons that have little to do with the truck's actual perrformance, reliability and durability. Considering how many trucks you see on the road freshly washed, waxed and 100% empty, one has to wonder about the rationality of the truck market. > I will give credit where credit is due. In trucks, GM and Ford, especially > keep the lead. And for the sake of those corporations and the US economy, I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> > > >> > mike hunt Every truck purchase that is NOT an F150 is a vote against Ford. Deal with it. > Better value than what? Many more private owners choose the > F150, by far, than any of Toyota trucks. In fact more so that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> >>> mike hunt > Every truck purchase that is NOT an F150 is a vote against Ford. Deal with > it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> >>>>mike hunt Can we get back some more "polite" off topic - like politics :-) I think we have beat FORD to death. I had one that almost killed me twice and lived up to its reputation two times - Found On Road Dead. Another Ford I had was Found On Road Dead on every trip that was longer than 60 miles - the carb had a leak that flooded after 60 miles. Ahhh ... killjoy. > Can we get back some more "polite" off topic - like politics :-). I > think we have beat FORD to death. I had one that almost killed me [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>>>> >>>>> mike hunt The model 'T' with the pickup box was noted for that. LOL mike hunt > Can we get back some more "polite" off topic - like politics :-) I think > we have beat FORD to death. I had one that almost killed me twice and > lived up to its reputation two times - Found On Road Dead. Another Ford > I had was Found On Road Dead on every trip that was longer than 60 miles > - the carb had a leak that flooded after 60 miles. The sad thing is this was top of the line Ford in the '70s. It had a 351 Cleveland. Too bad Ford did not use wind tunnels to test their body designs back then. It got up to speed quickly but the front end (the end with the big block of iron) would float at 70 mph. Once you got up to "planing speed" you could turn the steering wheel from side to side and not change the direction of the car. A current Camry handles better in the turns than that top of line Ford sports car. > The model 'T' with the pickup box was noted for > that. LOL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>I had was Found On Road Dead on every trip that was longer than 60 miles >>- the carb had a leak that flooded after 60 miles. > The sad thing is this was top of the line Ford in the '70s. It had a 351 > Cleveland. Too bad Ford did not use wind tunnels to test their body [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not change the direction of the car. A current Camry handles better in > the turns than that top of line Ford sports car. My '68 Mustang also used to "float" above 70 MPH but getting there from a standstill sure was a lot of fun! SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply Toyota would lose that election like Kerry. There are many more red state than blue. More buyers in the US vote for Ford. Fords sells many more cars and trucks than Toyota. LOL mike hunt > Every truck purchase that is NOT an F150 is a vote against Ford. Deal with > it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >>> > >>> mike hunt The trend is point. > Toyota would lose that election like Kerry. There are many more > red state than blue. More buyers in the US vote for Ford. Fords [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>>>> >>>>> mike hunt On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:08:17 -0400, some stupid top-posting, nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself RustyFendor wrote: >More buyers in the US vote for Ford. Fords >sells many more cars and trucks than Toyota. Just proves that most people are stupid, just like the fact that Bush was re-elected. > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:08:17 -0400, some stupid top-posting, > nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself RustyFendor wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just proves that most people are stupid, just like the fact that Bush > was re-elected. And that your parents didn't use effective birth control If you believe ongoing volumes of repeated demonstrations of stupidity in ones post in a NG is the criteria, then you Dizzy (AKA Moron, Stupid, A$$#ole, Idiot etc.) surely MUST have voted for Bush and drive a Ford. LOL mike hunt > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:08:17 -0400, some stupid top-posting, > nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself RustyFendor wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just proves that most people are stupid, just like the fact that Bush > was re-elected. On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:18:14 -0400, BigJohnso wrote: > If you believe ongoing volumes of repeated demonstrations of > stupidity in ones post in a NG is the criteria, then you Dizzy > (AKA Moron, Stupid, A$$#ole, Idiot etc.) surely MUST have voted > for Bush and drive a Ford. LOL > > mike hunt Aw, stop pickin' on diz! it's nice having him around...sorat like that dog they call Lucky... >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:08:17 -0400, some stupid top-posting, >> nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself RustyFendor wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Just proves that most people are stupid, just like the fact that Bush >> was re-elected. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:42:38 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > Better value than what? Many more private owners choose the > F150, by far, than any of Toyota trucks. In fact more so that > ALL of Toyotas trucks and SUV's combined. ;) Ford F150's languish on my lot for weeks or months (Except F350 Stroker 4X4's...they sell in days) Toyotas sell in days or weeks. Do the math.... Fastest F350 sale: 6 days Fastest Toyota sale: 16 HOURS Slowest Ford sale: 7 months (F150 4X4) Slowest Toyota sale: 12 days YEP!!!! More people prefer Fords!!!! > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > >> > mike hunt The does not deserve any of my time LOL mike hunt > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:42:38 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >> > > >> > mike hunt Where are you located? I am looking for a used truck suitable for moving Boy Scout gear to camps under all weather conditions. The local Ford dealer falsely advertises 25% off for everyone on the radio ads, but when you get there, that is only if you qualify for every discount under the sun. I have friends in the office who own GM products and all I hear is about electrical devices failing; power windows, wipers, lights, radios, starters etc. They complain and then absolutely refuse to sell the used truck to a friend - these are real friends. > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:42:38 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>> >>>>mike hunt > Where are you located? I am looking for a used truck suitable for moving > Boy Scout gear to camps under all weather conditions. The local Ford [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > starters etc. They complain and then absolutely refuse to sell the used > truck to a friend - these are real friends. Another fellow Boy Scout leader! If you are in the Chicago area, I'll hook you up with a Toyota/Lexus/Chevy/Ford dealer. In southern ME, it would be a Toyota/Nissan/Chrysler dealer. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > Where are you located? I am looking for a used truck suitable for > moving Boy Scout gear to camps under all weather conditions. Oh, that's easy. Mint condition 1980's Land Cruiser. The one inbetween the plasticky ones they make now and the bare-metal rockcrawlers of old. Fits a bunch of kids, is made of real metal, and is great off-road. > Where are you located? I am looking for a used truck suitable for > moving Boy Scout gear to camps under all weather conditions. The local [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lights, radios, starters etc. They complain and then absolutely refuse > to sell the used truck to a friend - these are real friends. If I remember correctly, I am 20 miles North of You! North King Street, next to the State Police where the Old German Guy had all the Old German Cars. Right now I have an '01 Toyota Tacoma w/28.000 on it; a 4-Runner w/117,000 that was well maintained and still smells new! and a Legacy Wagon. You just missed a Bright Red Explorer, we sold it to a local Fire Cheif for his "Official Vehicle". I also have a Ranger w/60K; this would be your best bet if you came in waving Cash. I will have a couple older trucks soon, I know a '97 Chevy Extra Cab and an '02 (er, that's not too old, eh?) GMC 2500. E-Mail me at hachiroku_ae88@yahoo.com. I'll see what I can do to cut you a deal on something (I'm not the Boss here...) Is the Ford Dealer in Agawam, by any chance? >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:42:38 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>>> >>>>>mike hunt Get me a deal on a used vehicle? The last time I purchased a used vehicle was back in the fifties ;) I do not recommend to anybody that they buy a particular brand or any particular dealer. One should first drive all of those that they believe best meets their needs, then decide which best meets the budget. If you want to buy a new Ford, or any other brand for that matter, go to manufactures wed site, spec out the truck the way you want it. First, I you can't pay from available funds, go to a several finance sources to obtain the best contract terms that suit your budget. Then send the specs to the Sales Manager at every dealer, of that brand in your area, asking them to give you a FOB bid price including all rebates, incentive, discount and fees. Then go see the dealer that bid the lowest price, WBMA mike hunt > > Where are you located? I am looking for a used truck suitable for > > moving Boy Scout gear to camps under all weather conditions. The local [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >>>>> > >>>>>mike hunt Hahhah. People prefer to leave Fords alone when they plan on keeping the vehicle. > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:42:38 -0400, RustyFendor wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>> >>>> mike hunt > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL > > mike hunt I gave Ford a try when I purchased a 1997 F-150 4.6L from my mother-in-law when her husband died. I knew the history of the truck and how it had been maintained. It was three years old when I got it. The rattles and shakes of that truck drove me crazy. Everytime I went over a bump something in the steering column moved. They told me it was a sloppy fitting of the pin that holds the collapsible column together. The rattle behind me where the seatbelt went into the interior paneling was insidious. I had torn all that skin apart trying to get at it. A crack developed along the outside of the driver's door about midway up. The rusting frame and undercar parts were a deadly cancer. The cable from the battery to the alternator fell off on a long trip when the screw rusted off. The 12 MPG was eating a hole in my wallet. However it did have decent power and hauling capability. After about the third time I took it to the dealer he asked me what my other vehicle was. I told him a 1994 Toyota Camry. He said to me "This is not a Toyota. Get used to the rattles." I knew then I could never keep that truck and sold it next month after owning it one year. SignatureNo matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously. Ya right. mike hunt > > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously. > Ya right. Ya right what? You think I'm making that up? It is a true experience I had with the Service Manager. SignatureNo matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously. > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL It's funny that you laugh. As I am eligible for a Ford fleet discount, I totally checked out an F150. It's nice, but it's a bit too big. Then I DROVE them. Hands down, the Toyota's better. The F150 is like driving a marshmallow. The F150 would have cost me LESS! "LOL" Barry I also forgot to mention that F150 isn't even available with a stick, my preference, the Toyota's got a 6 speed. I've owned several examples of both brands before, and as a self maintainer, the engineering differences are huge. I had primarily looked at the F150 for two reasons: 1.) I like the look of it. 2.) With the corporate fleet discount, I could have saved money. The Toyota has enough room, payload, power, and towing capacity for me needs. Bigger is not always better. Barry That may be true until you want to haul or tow something of any consequence, I guess. As long as your satisfied, that is what counts. The Tacoma is a good truck. Thanks to GM it is made in the US, at least till 2006 when its production is scheduled to go to the new Toyota plant in Mexico. I hope you have luck with your truck in any event. mike hunt > I also forgot to mention that F150 isn't even available with a stick, my > preference, the Toyota's got a 6 speed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Barry I find it a bit hard to understand that anyone would spend more money to buy a smaller truck that will be worth much less in three years, but like I always say it is your money spend it where you wish. ;) mike hunt > > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Barry > I find it a bit hard to understand that anyone would spend more > money to buy a smaller truck The same reason I pay more for a 12 oz. microbrew than a 16 oz. Miller. > that will be worth much less in > three years It won't be. But then again, mine won't be for sale for at least 8-10 years. Perhaps you should go back under your bridge? Barry >> I find it a bit hard to understand that anyone would spend more >> money to buy a smaller truck > > The same reason I pay more for a 12 oz. microbrew than a 16 oz. > Miller. GREAT rebuff! Good one, Barry! >>>I find it a bit hard to understand that anyone would spend more >>>money to buy a smaller truck [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GREAT rebuff! Good one, Barry! Using the "more for less money" approach, maybe I should have gone whole hog and bought this: <http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford/econolinecargo/100526019/options.html?tid=e dmunds.n.prices.pricebox..1.Ford*&x=89&y=11> <G> Barry > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL Ticky-tacky interior, 15mpg, can't park it to save your life if you're in an urban area... My sister bought one. She drives her ancient 1988 Park Avenue 90% of the time instead. I call that less than satisfied with her new truck. Ya I know what you're saying. I probably would not like driving an F150 either after driving the kind of luxury cars I generally drive. The new Lincoln Mark LT would most likely be my choice if I needed a truck, Like you sister, many times buyers buy vehicles that they later discover they don't like. Your sister is entitled to her own opinion just like anybody else, but it seems your sister is a part of a very small minority. The fact is a majority of F150 buyers must like their F150 since they are repeat buyers. Historically as separate groups more individuals, corporations, federal state and local governments have purchase another F150, more than any other vehicle, ever. The F150 has been the number one selling vehicle in the US for more than 28 years. More people bought more of them then any other vehicle in one year, than any time in history, in 2004. Total sales is obviously the best indicator of what most buyers prefer as opposed to opinions. Buyer love the Camry too, its the number one car but about twice as many annually buy the F150 Buyers buy more F150s in a month or so than buy Tundras and Tacomes all year. ;) mike hunt > > It is your money but for what you paid for a mid size truck you > > could have purchased a REAL truck, a full size F150 LOL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 90% of the time instead. I call that less than satisfied with > her new truck. > > There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run > > too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > in the league of the others, despite their actual 3-4K lower > selling price. And it does't irk you when Toyota / Nissan / whoever, do exactly the same thing? When I shopped for a new pickup last fall, all of the dealers offered huge discounts off MSRP (Tundra was over $2K off). Unfortunately none were huge enough to entice me to buy. At the moment, virtually ever Toyota model has some sort of rebate depending on who you are, what you do, and where you live. Does this irk you? Ed Ed > And it does't irk you when Toyota / Nissan / whoever, do > exactly the same thing? When I shopped for a new pickup last > fall, all of the dealers offered huge discounts off MSRP > (Tundra was over $2K off). Last year models are entirely different from huge artificial "rebates" on brand new vehicles just released. > > And it does't irk you when Toyota / Nissan / whoever, do > > exactly the same thing? When I shopped for a new pickup last [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Last year models are entirely different from huge artificial > "rebates" on brand new vehicles just released. You mean like the $2K rebate on 2005 Tundras? Ed > There is another thread about new Lexus and Toyota models that has just run > too long. Accordingly, I wanted to spin off that conversation with a new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > build. But my point is that THE MARKET prices Toy/Hon vehicles to last about > 50% longer). Well, around here (North Carolina) you see very few 20 year old Japanese cars. Rust, even in the relatively mild NC climate, was a real problem for Japanese cars of that era. My '75 280Z was already suffering from rust when I last saw it in the early '80's. My sisters '79 Accord literally rusted away in less than 7 years. The paint melted off my ex's early 80's Cressida. My '86 Mazda was little better. None of these cars could have been described as trouble free. The Datsun was a pain in the rear (clutch problems, fuel injection problems, rattles, rust, clunking rear end). The Cressida was even worse (A/C, Alternator, Automatic Transmission, crappy plastic, paint, etc.). The Mazda suffered from poor paint, overheating problems, alternator problems, etc. The Accord was the best of the lot, but rusted badly, and suffered from horrible wind noise and rode like crap. I laugh when ever people tell me how great Japanese cars are. With the exception of the Honda, more was spent on repairs for any one of those Japanese cars than any three US cars I have owned combined. In retrospect, they were all under powered, cramped, and over priced. I understand your point about Japanese cars holding there value better than US cars. From what I have seen this is mostly based on perception and not reality. In 1997 I bought a Ford Expedition, and at the same time my Sister bought a Honda Civic. In 147,000 miles of driving the Expedition I had to pay for one alternator, one coil pack, and two brake jobs. I traded it off in 2002. The paint was still perfect. It ran great and didn't use any oil between changes. In less than 100K miles my Sister has had to replace plug wires, a muffler, brakes once, and one timing belt. She has actually spent more on repairs and maintenance on this Honda than I did on my Expedition in 50% more miles. The paint is falling off the bumper, the rest of the paint is dull, interior bits are falling off, and the engine uses around a quart of oil between changes. Which was the better vehicle? I am sure she would say the Honda, since it used about half as much gas per mile as my Expedition. My ex has an MDX. I get great enjoyment hearing about how often it goes in the shop. 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
|
©2009 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.