What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?
C. E. White
Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
be a very low number to me. What do other think?
I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
but maybe I am an exception.
Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
Year Original Percent Total
Sold Sales On road On Road
1990 500000 33% 165000
1991 525000 38% 199500
1992 551250 43% 237038
1993 578813 48% 277830
1994 607753 53% 322109
1995 638141 58% 370122
1996 670048 63% 422130
1997 703550 68% 478414
1998 738728 72% 531884
1999 775664 76% 589505
2000 814447 80% 651558
2001 855170 84% 718343
2002 897928 88% 790177
2003 942825 91% 857970
2004 989966 93% 920668
2005 1039464 96% 997886
2006 1091437 97% 1058694
2007 1146009 98% 1123089
2008 1203310 99% 1191277
2009 1263475 99% 1250840
Total 16532977 80% 13154033
For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
year), but same percent still on the road:
1990 1263475 33% 416947
1991 1250840 38% 475319
1992 1238332 43% 532483
1993 1225949 48% 588455
1994 1213689 53% 643255
1995 1201552 58% 696900
1996 1189537 63% 749408
1997 1177641 68% 800796
1998 1165865 72% 839423
1999 1154206 76% 877197
2000 1142664 80% 914131
2001 1131238 84% 950240
2002 1119925 88% 985534
2003 1108726 91% 1008941
2004 1097639 93% 1020804
2005 1086662 96% 1043196
2006 1075796 97% 1043522
2007 1065038 98% 1043737
2008 1054387 99% 1043843
2009 1043843 99% 1033405
Total 23007003 73% 16707535
The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
in the two statements.
Ed
David
Here in the UK the Government is trying to get older cars off the road.
If you buy a new car and scrap your present one of 10 years or older they
give you �2000. I think in Europe is �3000 ( in Euros of course.)
--
Regards,
David
FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.
Tegger
@kcnews01:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of north-
eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly high, unless that
missing 20% is all concentrated up here.
My personal guess, based on my visual observations while on the road each
day, is that overall the percentage of cars (not just Toyotas) still in
daily use after 20 years would be more like one to five percent.
I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars older
than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.
--
Tegger
Jules
>
> Here in the UK the Government is trying to get older cars off the road.
> If you buy a new car and scrap your present one of 10 years or older they
> give you £2000. I think in Europe is £3000 ( in Euros of course.)
Same sort of deal here in the US. Shame as I'm sure it's not very
eco-friendly extracting materials, processing, building and shipping a new
car vs. just keeping a properly-maintained old one on the road, but I
suspect these government schemes are more about stimulating the economy,
and the 'green' aspect is really a convenient way of attracting interest...
(most folk seem to equate things to old vs. new, and new being better
because it uses less energy or pollutes less - but few seem to think about
the 'cost' in providing the new thing, or disposing of the thing being
replaced, or disposing of the new thing when it breaks)
cheers
Jules
Ray O
"C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
Automakers generally don't come up with the various statements and claims
made in advertising. More often, it the automakers' ad agencies that come
up with the statements. Of course, auto executives have to approve the ads.
In Toyota's case, I suspect that the ad is a counter to the Detroit 3's ads
citing various sources to show that their vehicles are the longest lasting.
The trend to cite statistics in advertising is probably the result of what
marketing professors have been teaching marketing majors in college.
The "80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road" implies
that other volume automakers have a lower volume, which could be the result
of the Cash for Clunkers program. Most of the vehicles traded in for the
program were supposed to get less than 18 MPG and be less than 25 years old.
Other than the Land Cruiser, Tundra, and Sequoia, a very high proportion of
Toyotas sold in the last 20 years (probably greater than 80%) did not
qualify for the clunkers program because they got better than 18 MPG. The
Detroit 3's historical sales have been larger vehicles, so they may have had
disproportionate representation in the clunkers traded in, regardless of the
condition of the vehicles. I think something like 700,000 clunkers were
traded in, and if they were mostly Detroit 3 products, then that may have
been enough to sway the statistics in Toyota's favor.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
m6onz5a
wrote:
All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
see any old ones on the road.
N8N
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
Somewhere I remember seeing stats of vehicle survival broken down by
mfgr - although I haven't a clue where I saw it now, and can't be
arsed to look at the moment. IIRC the longest-lived vehicles aren't
necessarily the ones you'd think - e.g. Porsche was near the top of
the list. (of course, I'm contributing to that stat myself, although
I also have a fairly aged F-150 as well.)
nate
Michael
wrote:
You might try digging in the www.census.gov website.
Not sure how much this will help you: http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html
Good luck,
Michael
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
You need to read the claim.
80% of vehicles sold over the last 20 years are still on the road.
This could be true even if NO 20 year old Toyotas were still on the
road. There are still a significant number of 1989 Toyotas on the
road, particularly in the south, and California (where the majority
were sold in the beginning)
hls
"N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:55b0e47e-edb9-4ad9-
Somewhere I remember seeing stats of vehicle survival broken down by
mfgr - although I haven't a clue where I saw it now, and can't be
arsed to look at the moment. IIRC the longest-lived vehicles aren't
necessarily the ones you'd think - e.g. Porsche was near the top of
the list. (of course, I'm contributing to that stat myself, although
I also have a fairly aged F-150 as well.)
nate
**********
It doesnt surprise me, Nate.. Porsche went for long periods without
changing
the sheet metal, but rather spending time to improve the breed. They were
built to run, and were not shoddy tin heaps. And, when they break, they
usually have enough character that the owner will repair them.
Ferrari's have a similar tradition. Tough as nails, dont need repair often,
but expensive when you do. You dont see many Ferraris a Pick A Part.
We could probably compile a like list of cars that were not so expensive,
that the owners ran the crap out of them and left them "rode hard and put
up wet". And when they get sick, with time, there is limited interest in
keeping them up.
Vic Smith
<cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
>be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
>I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
>twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
>last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
>over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
>newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
>that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
>of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
>newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
>been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
>higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
>likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
>registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
>actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
>used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
>Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
>NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
>but maybe I am an exception.
>
As you say (snipped the rest for brevity) the ad is deceptive.
What else is new?
Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
longevity.
http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
"imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
R.L. Polk is a company that has access to state registration
databases.
http://usa.polk.com/Industries/Research/
"Polk Used Vehicle Registration Reports
Used vehicle registration statistics assist you with stocking
inventory, purchasing vehicles at auction as well as identifying
market trends and unveiling opportunities. The reports are completely
customizable you define the specifications, geography and
time-period."
I actually called them once to inquire about getting an extract of
registration data. Just to satisfy my curiosity about longevity and
as a tool in arguments.
It was too expensive for that purpose.
But with registration data and sales data, longevity is easy enough to
figure out. And it's not a high volume of data.
Make/Model/Year - maybe cylinders and color, depending on the state.
Perhaps 20 bytes max per car, depending.
Have to talk to the data guy who knows the format.
Breakdowns by state (rust belt vs non-rustbelt) could be done.
Of course there are built-in "unknowns" due to vehicles relocating
from state to state, but most stay home in one state.
Here's an example of why color could be useful, if only to satisfy
curiosity.
I've got a white '97 Lumina. Good runner, basically repair-free.
Just did a 3K mile trip to Florida with it. About 150k miles on it.
Thing is, a lot of these white Luminas suffer from peeling paint.
Comes off in big honking sheets, leaving the undercoat.
I stopped mine pretty early by pulling off the loose stuff and sealing
the edges and covering the primer with a few cans of spay paint.
Doesn't look very good when close, but I don't care.
I've seen a lot of these white Luminas with the poor paint.
Wonder how many get junked early because of that paint.
Most people just won't put up with that.
Just curious. But that's the type of thing that will show up in the
numbers. But you have to have the numbers.
Otherwise you're dealing with anecdotes.
--Vic
>
Hachiroku ハチロク
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.
And I personally own about half of them...
Tegger
news:ukiee517m0l7ll2rc...@4ax.com:
That's why I said "unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here
[in the Rust Belt]". Sure, it's possible Toyota's figures are accurate if
you include the dry southwest. Cars stay rust-free for a /long/ time down
there.
Informal survey by myself today:
Mileage covered: about 100
Number of cars observed: thousands, I'm sure
Number of cars obviously over 20 years in age: one (~'85 Olds Cutlass)
Number of cars that were older than 1993: maybe 20
I would say that the overwhelming bulk of the cars I saw today were between
five and ten years old.
--
Tegger
Tegger
news:nvlee55gkcllskd40...@4ax.com:
> Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
> longevity.
> http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%2
> 0OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
>
> It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
> "imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
> No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
> analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
> the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
> they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
Another thing not covered in that Desrosiers document: Annual mileage. It's
one thing to have a vehicle still registered for the road, but quite
another to have it registered but rarely actually going anywhere.
A lot of much older cars get relegated to second or third-car status and
sit in the driveway a lot. People become unwilling to trust the old heap to
go very far without breaking down.
How many of those "80% of Toyotas still on the road" are actually still
covering close to the mileages they did when new? We'll never know, I
guess.
--
Tegger
Vic Smith
<cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
>see any old ones on the road.
That's another problem with getting "real" and useful meaning from
registration figures.
Where I live in the burbs there's hardly any old cars. My '90 Corsica
might be the oldest car of the closest 200 cars around here.
I just use it for local trips, and wouldn't take it on the road.
But if I go about 10 miles into the north side of Chicago, I can see
all sorts of such cars parked on the streets.
Instead of 1 in 200, it's more like 1 in 10.
I assume that most are used like mine, and not real "highway cars."
But where you're at can make a huge difference in the age of cars you
see around you.
--Vic
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:nvlee55gkcllskd40...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
>> longevity.
>> http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%2
>> 0OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
>>
>> It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
>> "imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
>> No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
>> analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
>> the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
>> they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
>
>
>
>Another thing not covered in that Desrosiers document: Annual mileage. It's
>one thing to have a vehicle still registered for the road, but quite
>another to have it registered but rarely actually going anywhere.
>
Yep. And that's not kept on the state reg DB's either.
>A lot of much older cars get relegated to second or third-car status and
>sit in the driveway a lot. People become unwilling to trust the old heap to
>go very far without breaking down.
>
>How many of those "80% of Toyotas still on the road" are actually still
>covering close to the mileages they did when new? We'll never know, I
>guess.
Agree. My '90 Corisca has about 120k miles, but the last 5k has taken
about 5 years to put on.
And this year it's gone not more than a few hundred miles.
--Vic
Tegger
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
> <cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
>>see any old ones on the road.
>
> That's another problem with getting "real" and useful meaning from
> registration figures.
> Where I live in the burbs there's hardly any old cars. My '90 Corsica
> might be the oldest car of the closest 200 cars around here.
> I just use it for local trips, and wouldn't take it on the road.
> But if I go about 10 miles into the north side of Chicago, I can see
> all sorts of such cars parked on the streets.
Exactly the point I just made in another reply. Being registered for the
road does not correlate with actual use.
> Instead of 1 in 200, it's more like 1 in 10.
> I assume that most are used like mine, and not real "highway cars."
> But where you're at can make a huge difference in the age of cars you
> see around you.
Yep.
My '91 Integra, still very much a daily driver (with 332,000 miles on it),
is often the oldest car around, wherever I am.
--
Tegger
Scott Dorsey
>
>My '91 Integra, still very much a daily driver (with 332,000 miles on it),
>is often the oldest car around, wherever I am.
This morning I parked my '74 next to a Desoto and a '54 MG at work. And
I work for an outfit that's supposed to be doing state of the art
technology, too.
The guy with the Model A wasn't there, though. He took the Maverick in.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Tegger
news:hc86r2$e3h$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Tegger <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote:
>>
>>My '91 Integra, still very much a daily driver (with 332,000 miles on
>>it), is often the oldest car around, wherever I am.
>
>
> This morning I parked my '74 next to a Desoto and a '54 MG at work.
> And I work for an outfit that's supposed to be doing state of the art
> technology, too.
>
> The guy with the Model A wasn't there, though. He took the Maverick
> in.
>
You work in a very unusual place, I must say. Does your company hire only
one-upmans?
--
Tegger
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>Tegger <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote:
>>
>>My '91 Integra, still very much a daily driver (with 332,000 miles on it),
>>is often the oldest car around, wherever I am.
>
>This morning I parked my '74 next to a Desoto and a '54 MG at work. And
>I work for an outfit that's supposed to be doing state of the art
>technology, too.
>
>The guy with the Model A wasn't there, though. He took the Maverick in.
>--scott
Where I work guys own a 66 stang, a 69 Chevelle (not malibu) post,and
a 61 vette, a '72 Challenger that I know of. On my street there is a
68? Firebird, a 57 BelAir, a 72 Duster, an early 80s Z28, and around
the corner a 69 Z28 and a 65 valiant that I know of. Then there's a
TVR arond the corner the other way, mid 70's.Several early 80s Supras
and Hondas in the neighbourhood too last I checked a couple blocks
over. Early Honda Accord across the street too that is very close to
20 years old.
At least half the rest of the cars on the street will be over 8 years
old - and it's NOT a depressed area.
Scott Dorsey
>> And I work for an outfit that's supposed to be doing state of the art
>> technology, too.
>>
>> The guy with the Model A wasn't there, though. He took the Maverick
>> in.
>
>You work in a very unusual place, I must say. Does your company hire only
>one-upmans?
No, mostly geeks. Believe me, the car dealers and hardware stores near
the base have some stories...
SMS
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
There was a study in Canada about this.
For vehicles 11-20 years old, a 2006 Canadian study showed the following
order for highest percentage of cars still on the road in Canada
adjusted for how many were originally sold):
1. Lexus
2. Mercedes
3. Saturn
4. Infiniti
5. Acura
6. BMW
7. Volvo
8. Cadillac
9. Jaguar
10. Lincoln
11. Toyota
12. Honda
13. Mazda
14. Saab
15. Buick
16. Volkswagen
17. Chrysler
18. Nissan
---Industry Average---
19. Oldsmobile
20. Subaru
21. Chevrolet
22. Ford
23. Pontiac
24. Audi
25. Mercury
26. Eagle
27. Dodge
28. Suzuki
29. Plymouth
30. Isuzu
31. Hyundai
32. Lada
They warn that this data needs to interpreted correctly. Owners of older
expensive luxury cars are more likely to repair their vehicle than junk
it. Vehicles sold in large numbers into rental fleets rack up a lot of
miles and have shorter life in years, but not necessarily in miles. Some
vehicles in the list didn't exist 20 years prior to the study so there
were no vehicles 16-20 years old, only vehicles 11-15 years old (this
explains the anomaly of Saturn).
Bottom line is that for vehicle brands in existence for the full 11-20
year time span, Toyota had the highest percentage of vehicles still on
the road for non-luxury brands.
What's also interesting is that vehicles like Volkswagen, which
routinely ranks far below average in reliability, did relatively well.
dr_jeff
200,000 mi going strong after 20 years, and a Ford Focus that has been
worn out after 500,000 after 3 years.
Scott Dorsey
I would just like to point out that Fiat is not even ON this list, that
it is farther down in the order than Lada. There is some justice in this
world.
IYM
> They warn that this data needs to interpreted correctly. Owners of older
> expensive luxury cars are more likely to repair their vehicle than junk
> it. Vehicles sold in large numbers into rental fleets rack up a lot of
> miles and have shorter life in years, but not necessarily in miles. Some
> vehicles in the list didn't exist 20 years prior to the study so there
> were no vehicles 16-20 years old, only vehicles 11-15 years old (this
> explains the anomaly of Saturn).
Not sure I agree with that...Saturn's first year was 91 (18 years) and
the first 2-5 years were the most popular, declining from there...Lexus
first year was '90, Infinity was '89 and Acura's been around in North
America since '86... So all roughly the same start time (except acura).
The 1st generation Saturn's are go-karts, a very simple design and are
easy to maintain. The composite door panels are easy to swap out when
damaged. Parts are cheap, plentiful and the first generation cars have
a large fan base (before the Vue's, Ion's and before the company was
brought back in to the GM fold and released disasters like the Relay van
and Opel products they are now.) The original Saturns are still higher
on the theft list then you'd think for the same reason old Camreys
are...interchangeability...
So I don't doubt they are up there. That number will slip off the list
in another 5 years though.
Just MHO...
IYM
SMS
> The numbers are misleading, however. You can have a Lexus that has
> 200,000 mi going strong after 20 years, and a Ford Focus that has been
> worn out after 500,000 after 3 years.
And the reverse could also be true. There are always outliers, but of
all the possible reasons for the results, the one you gave is probably
the least likely to affect the results.
Remove the luxury makes, the niche brands, and the makes that were not
in existence for the full 20 years, and the brands that were the most
likely to be on the road for 11-20 years are:
1. Toyota
2. Honda
3. Mazda
4. Buick
5. VW
6. Buick
7. Chrysler (or is this a luxury brand?)
8. Nissan
The top two are very consistent with what you see on the road, at least
in the state I live in. Tons of older Hondas and Toyotas, VWs, and Nissans.
What the survey doesn't take into account is the demographics of the
owners. Someone that purchases a Toyota or Honda is more likely to be
more highly educated and higher income, and will maintain their vehicles
better and will be less likely to drive in a way that will total the
vehicle, than the purchaser of many of the makes that did poorly in
longevity.
SMS
>
>> They warn that this data needs to interpreted correctly. Owners of
>> older expensive luxury cars are more likely to repair their vehicle
>> than junk it. Vehicles sold in large numbers into rental fleets rack
>> up a lot of miles and have shorter life in years, but not necessarily
>> in miles. Some vehicles in the list didn't exist 20 years prior to the
>> study so there were no vehicles 16-20 years old, only vehicles 11-15
>> years old (this explains the anomaly of Saturn).
>
> Not sure I agree with that...Saturn's first year was 91 (18 years) and
> the first 2-5 years were the most popular, declining from there...Lexus
What's strange about Saturn being there is that the early Saturns were
exceptionally unreliable, with severe oil burning problems, cracked
blocks, and broken timing chains. Maybe the owners just spent a lot on
repairs.
C. E. White
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae84eb5$0$1639$742e...@news.sonic.net...
This seems to discount the factor I am talking about - Toyota sales
(both in the US and Canada) have greatly increased over the last
twenty years. The average age for a set that includes all Toyotas sold
for any period of more than one year in the last twenty years will be
lower than for a company like GM that has had stagnent or a declining
market share over that period. Both have been selling cars for more
than 20 years in the market, but the average age of Toyotas sold
during the twenty year period is not as old as the average age for GM
cars sold during the same period. It seems to me that this must be an
improtant factor. Unless you factor this out, then all you are doing
to confusing people...if you are Toyota, it is a good confusion, if
you are GM it is a bad thing.
> What's also interesting is that vehicles like Volkswagen, which
> routinely ranks far below average in reliability, did relatively
> well.
>
> "http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/2006/060905-1.htm"
.I look at cars like applainces. When they no longer meet my needs, I
dump them and get something else. In my opionion, VW owners (at least
some VW owners, and particularly old Bug owners) look at the cars as
an end in themselves. I think they take some sort of pride in proving
that they can keep a VW running despite the odds against them. When I
was younger, I felt like that about British Cars. I am smarter now...
Ed
IYM
Every one of those problems you list were limited I believe to only one
engine - the single cam engines - on the S1's, and not the twin cam
S2s...Not sure about the amount of S1's vs. S2's that were sold though.
As I said, they have a big following...Maybe the whole Saturn
experience that was going on back then dulled the pain of those that did
have those problems. They had that whole Saturn homecoming weekend
where you could go to the Tennessee plant, and they used to bring the
car into the showroom while you were signing papers. When the keys were
handed to you, the whole staff (sales, service, ect.) were there around
the car clapping like a Applebee's staff when it's someones birthday as
you drove it out of the showroom lol...Dunno...Still see a ton on the
road though...
SMS
> This seems to discount the factor I am talking about - Toyota sales
> (both in the US and Canada) have greatly increased over the last
> twenty years.
These rankings are based on the number of vehicles originally sold, they
are not raw numbers. Not sure what you're trying to say here.
The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that
Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or
Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much
greater reliability.
N8N
If it's a US-centric list, that makes sense, since neither was sold
here.
nate
N8N
wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but
they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which
actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly
ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider
getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much
more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other
mfgrs.
Yes, I love my old VWs and I wish I could have kept them all.
Especially my '84 Scirocco, I don't know what the hell I was thinking
when I sold that car. I'd probably still be driving it today.
nate
Scott Dorsey
>
>If it's a US-centric list, that makes sense, since neither was sold
>here.
It's a Canadian list. That's why it doesn't have Yugo on it.
However, Peugeot, Renault, and Fiat all sold cars in the US for a while.
You don't see a lot of them on the road today for reasons that will be
immediately apparent if you ever drive one.
80 Knight
> Someone that purchases a Toyota or Honda is more likely to be more highly
What drugs were you on when you wrote that?
N8N
Not in the last 20 years, I don't think. Last one to leave was
Renault I believe in something like '87 or '88?
nate
hls
"N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c044e792-495c-4cc4-
Not in the last 20 years, I don't think. Last one to leave was
Renault I believe in something like '87 or '88?
nate
*******
It has been a while, for sure. I have driven Renault and Peugeot in Europe
in recent years and they were surprisingly powerful and smooth. I believe
they are far better than the cars of years ago which were brought here
without a proper service and distribution network.
Fiat is likely to be still Fiat.
cuh...@webtv.net
vans which date back to the 1970s, some of them are even older, on the
roads and in store parking lots.They are all American brand name made in
America vehicles too.You just can't beat good old Detroit Iron.
cuhulin
cl...@snyder.on.ca
When was Fiat last sold in America. 1988? for Canada. So no Fiats
less than 20 years old.
Tegger
news:slrnhege2p.d...@svalbard.freeshell.org:
> (A car can be kept going pretty much
> indefinitely if one is sufficiently determined.)
>
And if the climate cooperates.
Up here in the Rust Belt it is very very very difficult to keep Mother
Nature from trying to reclaim a daily-driver-car's body. Impossible,
really.
--
Tegger
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>If it's a US-centric list, that makes sense, since neither was sold
>>here.
>
>It's a Canadian list. That's why it doesn't have Yugo on it.
>
>However, Peugeot, Renault, and Fiat all sold cars in the US for a while.
>You don't see a lot of them on the road today for reasons that will be
>immediately apparent if you ever drive one.
>--scott
We rallyed a Renaul R12 (1972) for 3 years (1979-1981) - it was a
clunker when we bought it and we pounded the crap out of it for 3
years - and never broke it. I'd agree, from experience, about both the
Fiat and the Peugot.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
Peugeot/Chrysler stopped selling 505 in 1991 The renaul Alliance and
Eagles ended in 1987
hls
<cuh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23116-4AE...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
Here is one that everybody drooled over in our homecoming parade a week
ago.. It is near perfect.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44066874@N05/4053898668/?edited=1
N8N
> On 28 Oct 2009 14:09:09 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
> >>If it's a US-centric list, that makes sense, since neither was sold
> >>here.
>
> >It's a Canadian list. That's why it doesn't have Yugo on it.
>
> >However, Peugeot, Renault, and Fiat all sold cars in the US for a while.
> >You don't see a lot of them on the road today for reasons that will be
> >immediately apparent if you ever drive one.
> >--scott
>
> We rallyed a Renaul R12 (1972) for 3 years (1979-1981) - it was a
> clunker when we bought it and we pounded the crap out of it for 3
> years - and never broke it. I'd agree, from experience, about both the
> Fiat and the Peugot.
Well, back in the day my mom had a Renault Encore (I believe that was
the Americanized version of the R11? I think?) and I ASSumed that the
comment about "apparent if you ever drive one" referred to the fact
that it could barely pull the skin off of a custard - to the point
that it was dangerous to drive in heavy traffic if you were used to
driving a powerful car - and was as exciting as sucking on a wet
dishrag.
In its defense, it WAS relatively reliable and trouble free, but gosh
darn it, I hated driving that car. I'd take the Scout or my dad's old
pickup every opportunity I could just to avoid it. The VW Golf that
replaced it was a wonderful, refreshing change. On the upside, it did
teach me to plan my moves, conserve momentum, and drive smoothly...
nate
N8N
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:51:57 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
You sure about that? I seem to remember the Peugeot dealership in
Pittsburgh packing up and leaving town while Renaults were still being
sold. Your date for Renault sounds about right to me, although I
think they still did sell the Renault-based Eagle Premier for a couple
more years.
nate
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>On Oct 28, 4:08 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
The R12 was the lowest powered car in the ONNRC rallye series all 3
years we ran it, but it finished 4th, 3rd, and second overall those 3
years.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>On Oct 28, 4:17 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
Peugeot (in Canada anyways) was sold at select Chrysler dealers for
the last few years - and "officially" they were available in 1991.
The eagle Premier was "kinda" a renault, but it had either the AMC 4cy
or the Volvo/Renault/Peugeot V6 engine - and it was built in Brampton
Ontario. - and was available untill 1992. It was BASED on the R21,
although all dimensions were different.
Steve Austin
It's hard to believe that in '57 Ford outsold Chevy.
Nate Nagel
It's really hard to believe that the '53-56 Studebakers didn't sell like
hotcakes, based on styling alone. Even a '57 Hawk makes a '57 Chevy
look stodgy and boring. (not knocking the Chevy, mind you - compared to
the cars they were building just three years earlier they're freaking
amazing.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
hls
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:hcaq...@news3.newsguy.com...
No doubt about it...The Hawks of both Studebaker and Packer were pretty
awesome creations.
C. E. White
>
> Ed
> VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but
> they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which
> actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly
> ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider
> getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much
> more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other
> mfgrs.
I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but I come down on the
other side regarding VW. Never again. We have had four VW products in the
family:
1981 Audi Coupe (mine)
1986 VW Jetta (older sister)
1992 VW Passat (youger sister)
1995 VW Jetta (SO's daughter)
None of us ever will consider another VW product. I think we all agree they
feel solid, drive nicely, look good, have good ergonomics, etc. We also all
agree they are unrelaible, constantly suffer from irriating failures, and
are expensive to own. The list of failures is long - power windows, cam bet
tensioner, fuse box, fuel pumps, palstic bits, paint, dash intruments, motor
mounts, A/C, tranmsission, clutch, suspesion bushings, etc., etc.
> Yes, I love my old VWs and I wish I could have kept them all.
> Especially my '84 Scirocco, I don't know what the hell I was thinking
> when I sold that car. I'd probably still be driving it today.
Yeah, I used to miss my British Sports Cars, but I got over it.
Ed
C. E. White
----- Original Message -----
From: "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,alt.autos.nissan,alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.tech
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> This seems to discount the factor I am talking about - Toyota sales (both
>> in the US and Canada) have greatly increased over the last twenty years.
>
> These rankings are based on the number of vehicles originally sold, they
> are not raw numbers. Not sure what you're trying to say here.
OK, one of of us is missing something. Were the rankings based on all the
cars of a particualr model sold during that 10 year eriod? If so, my
arguement holds. As a percentage of the total number of Toyotas sold during
the period, more f them would have been newer models. This is becasue Toyota
sales were rapidly increasing during the period. I tried to show this effect
in a prior post. It is a simple concept. Say during that period, Toyota
sales were increasing 5% a year and GM sales were stagnent.
percent number
model orignal still on road still on road
year sales in 2006 in 2006
----- -------- ------------- -------------
Manufacturer with increasing sales
----- -------- ------------- -------------
1986 100000 25% 25000
1987 105000 30% 31500
1988 110250 35% 38588
1989 115763 40% 46305
1990 121551 45% 54698
1991 127628 50% 63814
1992 134010 53% 71025
1993 140710 56% 78798
1994 147746 58% 85692
1995 155133 60% 93080
Total 1257789 47% 588499
----- -------- ------------- -------------
Manufactuer with stagnent sales
----- -------- ------------- -------------
1986 100000 25% 25000
1987 100000 30% 30000
1988 100000 35% 35000
1989 100000 40% 40000
1990 100000 45% 45000
1991 100000 50% 50000
1992 100000 53% 53000
1993 100000 56% 56000
1994 100000 58% 58000
1995 100000 60% 60000
Total 1000000 45% 452000
So, even though both manufacuters had the same percentage of each model year
vehicles on the road, the ten year average for the manufacturer with
increasing sales is 2% better than the manufacturer with stagnent sales. The
actual different might be greater or less depending on the difference in
growth rates and actual longevity of older vehicles.
My point is, that unless you have the actual raw data (sales for each year,
total number of vehicles sitll on the road for each mfg, etc) for each year,
you cannot determine anything from a list that just says manufacturer X has
Y% of car built over a ten year period still on the road. It seems like it
means more than it does.
> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that
> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or
> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much greater
> reliability.
This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas have
greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater reliability
that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I certainly
can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal experince
that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American cars.
In fact, I don't even think it is close given equal treatment. My Sister has
owned two Honda. Both were rolling junk in less than ten years. My parents
and myself owned a number of Fords over the same time periods she owned the
Hondas and all of them were in better condition after ten years than either
of the Hondas. I drove a 1986 Sable for ten years and more than a 140k miles
and then sold it to a friend who drove it another 60k miles before wrecking
it. My 1997 Expediton had two minor problems in 150k miles. I drove a 1992
F150 for 14 years and didn't have any problems until near the end (an
alternator and a fuel pump). I sold it to the local water meter reader. He
still uses it every day to read meters. The absolute worst car I ever
persoanlly owned was a 1983 Toyota Cressida. It was by far the least
relaible POS I ever owned. The paint literally vaporized. The trim all
faded. The interior plastic turned white and got brittle. The transmission
failed. The AC failed. The alternator failed every summer (I mean every
summer). The starter failed. And this was all in less than 6 years and less
than 6k miles. My SO, who loves Toyotas, had a late 80's Camry Wagon. She
remembers it as a terrific car. I remember the bad paint,the crumbling
interior plastic, the engine oil leaks, the transmission oil leaks, the bad
alternator, etc. It was worse than any Ford I ever owned, BUT, she would
tell you it was a wonderful car. Maybe I only see the bad things... But I am
not joking when I say at the end it leaked so much oil that she wouldn't
park it in the garage, and it killed all the grass where she parked it in
the yard. And despite how great she thought the car was, the truth is she
spent more money on repairs for that car than I spent on Fords in 15 years.
OK, these are just my stories and have no general significance - EXCEPT to
me. But whenever people tell me how great Toyotas and Honda are, I take it
with a grain of salt. I can look out at the cars in my parking lot right now
and see a couple of old Toyotas. They are not anything I would want. They
smoke when they start, the paint is faded, one neighbor's Corolla is
constantly in the shop (alternator, starter, missing, etc). My sisters 10
year old Civic was so horrible, I told her I wouldn't sell it for her
because I would be embarresed to claim the car was worth buying. The amazing
thing was, she sold the thing overnight with a Craigslist ad. The car was
positively undriveable. Yet the guy that bought it, told me how great it was
after a test drive. I wouldn't drive it to the grocercy store. Again, these
are just my personal observations, but I have a hard time swallowing claims
of extrodinary Toyota / Honda reliability based on what I have seen. I can't
believe that I live in some alternate dimension where all the bad Toyotas
and Honda get dumped.
And before you think I am anti-Toyota, I'll point out that I just
recommended to my Mother that she should buy a Toyota Highlander. I thought
it was the car that best met her wants/needs and I do expect it to be
reliable. BUT, I don't it expect it to be more reliable than the car it
replaced - a 2005 Freestyle. I can't see how it could be more reliable since
in nearly 5 years the Freestyle never needed a single repair (not one, none,
zero). (The Freestyle was totaled in an accident). I also helped both my
Sisters and my SO buy RAV4s. I was not as sold on the RAV4s as I was with
the Highlander. I felt very strongly that the Highlander was the right
vehicle at the right price for my Mother. I though the RAV4s were OK, but
overpriced compared to a Ford Escape. One of the RAV4 replaced an Escape
that was also totaled in an accident. When it was totaled the Escape had
well over 100k miles and was 8 years old. It had one significant problem
over the eight yearst - a leaky brake booster. My Siser was very happy with
it, but I think shet decided to go with the flow and try something different
when the Escape was wrecked. I am going to feel really bad if any of these
Toyotas has problems, but I don't expect problems. This is not becasue I
thnk Toyotas are exceptionally reliable. It is becasue I think Toyotas are
of average reliability, but then average is very good these days.
Ed
cl...@snyder.on.ca
There isn't a "weiner wagon" made that isn't expensive to own.
Nate Nagel
At the time that I had them, aftermarket support for the A1 chassis cars
was very good. I was able to keep them going on a shoestring budget.
Didn't have most of the "typical" failures either. I did rebuild the
suspensions on several of them but they had enough miles that I didn't
consider it a failure of the car and the parts were cheap (well, except
for the Koni struts - I did one car with cheap Boges and learned that
sometimes you only get what you pay for and no more) and it was an easy job.
Of course if you're not a DIY type that changes radically... paying
someone to do that stuff can add up.
Vic Smith
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
>> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that
>> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or
>> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much greater
>> reliability.
>
>This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas have
>greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
>said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater reliability
>that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I certainly
>can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal experince
>that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American cars.
You have to specify a model/engine.
What Toyota and Honda have done is concentrate on putting quality and
engineering in what they want to sell.
The domestic brands seldom do that.
That's why Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic have done well.
Although I believe the general public holds onto certain myths,
there's a basis in the Toyota/Honda myths.
With domestics you have to pick well, and if you're a new car buyer
hope it works out.
I'm a Chevy fan, but I buy used and know what I'm getting.
Spend very little per mile driven.
I'm sure the same can be done with Fords, but I don't know them.
But if I were to buy new, I might go for a Toyota or Honda.
Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
--Vic
dsi1
>
> At the time that I had them, aftermarket support for the A1 chassis cars
> was very good. I was able to keep them going on a shoestring budget.
> Didn't have most of the "typical" failures either. I did rebuild the
> suspensions on several of them but they had enough miles that I didn't
> consider it a failure of the car and the parts were cheap (well, except
> for the Koni struts - I did one car with cheap Boges and learned that
> sometimes you only get what you pay for and no more) and it was an easy
> job.
My experience was similar for my Rabbit and Scirroco. They used to sell
a spark plugs and point set at K-mart on the rack in a bubble package.
That's nice! OTOH, my guess is that most folks had a tougher time at it.
mark hoffman
> C. E. White wrote:
>> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of
>> all Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.
>
I have driven my 98 Toyota Avalon more this week, than my almost new 09 Kia.
But the Kia is probably going on a road trip to SC in November.
The Avalon, I just bought last Saturday... hopped in it, and proceeded to
drive it 30 some odd miles from SE OK to SW AR where I live. Stereo, cruise,
a/c all work, and its only got 163,000 miles on it.
Its status will be a daily driver/errand runner to keep miles off the new
Kia.
Jules
> I'm a Chevy fan, but I buy used and know what I'm getting.
> Spend very little per mile driven.
> I'm sure the same can be done with Fords, but I don't know them.
> But if I were to buy new, I might go for a Toyota or Honda.
> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
If you always buy used it's not sending money over the border, regardless
of what you get - or at least that's how I look at it.
Jules
> The Avalon, I just bought last Saturday... hopped in it, and proceeded to
> drive it 30 some odd miles from SE OK to SW AR where I live. Stereo, cruise,
> a/c all work, and its only got 163,000 miles on it.
That's about the mileage and age of my wife's (the one with the odd
vibration issue, if you're picking this up on rec.autos.tech).
Other than the vibration fault it's got a few other issues, but nothing
major - although the timing belt's up for renewal and I may as well do the
water pump while I'm at it. As it's still on the original alternator /
battery / exhaust I wouldn't be surprised if they don't need replacing in
the next few years.
I'm (surprisingly) impressed with it. I don't normally have much time for
vehicles newer than the 1970s - generally I've found newer stuff to be no
more reliable (assuming the older stuff's well-maintained) and an
expensive PITA to fix when it does break. Given the Winters and some of
the bad roads up here in northern MN (and that the wife puts 100 miles a
day on it) it's doing really well.
cheers
Jules
Steve
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:55:36 +0000, David wrote:
>
>> Here in the UK the Government is trying to get older cars off the road.
>> If you buy a new car and scrap your present one of 10 years or older they
>> give you £2000. I think in Europe is £3000 ( in Euros of course.)
>
> Same sort of deal here in the US. Shame as I'm sure it's not very
> eco-friendly extracting materials, processing, building and shipping a new
> car vs. just keeping a properly-maintained old one on the road,.
Exactly, but when owners take care of their cars, the government doesn't
get to spend like a drunken sailor and then claim "we're DOING something!!!"
I read an article the other day about the backlog of vehicles waiting to
be destroyed under "cash for clunkers." The recyclers are working double
shifts to try and get all the parts that are allowed to be recycled
removed from the cars (the government STUPIDLY is requiring the engines
to be needlessly destroyed). That includes everything from
transmissions, to power steering pumps, to suspension, manifolds,
accessories, servos, wheels, window glass, instruments, electronics, you
name it. Countless pieces that could be used to keep other cars running
better and cleaner- but the whole vehicle has to be shredded within a
certain time window, and most of those parts are not going to be removed
in time and will also be destroyed.
What a sad waste of time, resources, energy, and already-expended
pollution from making those parts that won't get sucked back into
smokestacks when the parts are destroyed. Quite the contrary, melting
them down and re-using them at the lowest level will emit *still more*.
Pathetic.
Steve
> "C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4ae70c7c$1
> @kcnews01:
>
>> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>>
>
>
> I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of north-
> eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly high, unless that
> missing 20% is all concentrated up here.
>
Well, there to a first approximation there are about as many Toyotas in
the junkyards I prowl for parts here in Texas as there are any other
brand. And this sure isn't the rust belt....
SMS
> VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but
> they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which
> actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly
> ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider
> getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much
> more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other
> mfgrs.
Yeah, I owned three VWs in the past. The problem was that the niggling
issues were often more than "occasional," and sometimes hard to
diagnose. OTOH they have very robust engines, the bodies don't easily
rust, the paint is magnitudes better than what you get on a Honda, and
replacement parts are widely available because so many of the parts are
standard across platforms, across the world. Plus they handle better
than the typical Toyota, Honda, or big 3 vehicle of the same size.
In my area, Toyota runs an automotive technology program at a local
college and turns out copious numbers of well-trained (and continually
trained) mechanics. Difficult to diagnose problems that result in
needless swapping of expensive components are rare if you have a well
trained mechanic.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Up here in the rust belt I don't see many. Funny.
cuh...@webtv.net
www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=276917
Yep, what a waste!
cuhulin
Tegger
news:qccke51mb1b9q7e9e...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:51:25 -0500, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of
>>> north-eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly
>>> high, unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here.
>>>
>>
>>Well, there to a first approximation there are about as many Toyotas
>>in the junkyards I prowl for parts here in Texas as there are any
>>other brand. And this sure isn't the rust belt....
>
>
> Up here in the rust belt I don't see many. Funny.
>
I don't know what wrecking yards you frequent, but my observation is
identical to Steve's. Except that American makes are more prevalent in
wrecking yards simply due to larger new-car sales.
--
Tegger
Dave
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:hc7ooj$8am$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.
>
Highly unlikely..
Dave
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o0vhe5hjrr57i7ek0...@4ax.com...
border.
aemeijers
time. The later variants, where they grafted on the butt-ugly standup
grille and even fins, not so much.
--
aem sends...
E. Meyer
On 10/29/09 9:13 PM, in article 7kv0fmF...@mid.individual.net, "Dave"
<hair...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That argument is officially irrelevant now since the Feds gave Chrysler to
Fiat, Hummer to China. Apparently sending the money across the border is
now the new American way. Funny how the Italians & Chinese think they can
make money selling that same stuff.
80 Knight
news:C70FC81D.13562%epme...@gmail.com...
There isn't anything "new" about it. North America has been selling itself
out to other countries for many years. Take a look at where your computer,
TV, microwave, etc., were built. They were once built here, by American
workers, but not any longer. The same is happening with the auto industry.
Too many people like "SMS" think the Japanese are some type of God's, who
can do anything better then the American's, and have no problem sleeping at
night knowing our children will be forced to flip burgers at McDonald's for
a living...providing there are enough people making enough money to *buy*
the McDonald's...
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:o0vhe5hjrr57i7ek0...@4ax.com...
>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>
> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>border.
I was just guessing that the workers putting the cars together within
our borders are getting paid for doing that.
And that they spend some of their wages locally, providing even more
work.
Could be wrong though. Maybe having the middlemen just import a ready
made product from a foreign country is better for the economy.
That's what they say on Wall street I think.
Pretty smart guys there.
--Vic
Nate Nagel
you got it right but it was actually Bob Bourke
hls
"80 Knight" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:KsqdnQER_vMh8HfX...@giganews.com...
> "E. Meyer" <epme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>> That argument is officially irrelevant now since the Feds gave Chrysler
>> to
>> Fiat, Hummer to China. Apparently sending the money across the border is
>> now the new American way. Funny how the Italians & Chinese think they
>> can
>> make money selling that same stuff.
>
> There isn't anything "new" about it. North America has been selling
> itself out to other countries for many years. Take a look at where your
> computer, TV, microwave, etc., were built. They were once built here, by
> American workers, but not any longer. The same is happening with the auto
> industry. Too many people like "SMS" think the Japanese are some type of
> God's, who can do anything better then the American's, and have no problem
> sleeping at night knowing our children will be forced to flip burgers at
> McDonald's for a living...providing there are enough people making enough
> money to *buy* the McDonald's...
Neither Hummer nor Chrysler were capable of competing profitably, I guess
Chrysler has been in trouble for years, thinking back to the days when Lee
Iacocca struggled to keep them from going totally under.
I agree with Knight, however, that our "government" has made it too easy
for our American companies to send production to sweatshop countries and
then reimport the product and make a killing.
I heard just the other day that iPhone by Apple is populated with parts from
Japan and perhaps Korea, and then assembled in China. The hard parts
manufacturers capture some $27 and a little more for the cost of the iPhone.
China makes about $4.00 per unit for the assembly. In the end, Apple takes
about 50% of the sales price of the phone in the USA as profit. Maybe a
smart business decision but it humps the economy and the jobs here in
the target market. The object of the study was the design, innovation,
and
planning make the money. It doesnt take any particular talent to put a
screw
in a hole.
One of the reasons our kids have to flip burgers or roll tacos is that many
of them do not prepare themselves for design, innovative and planning jobs.
There was a time when a high school graduate could get a job, rear a family,
buy a home, and have a good life. That is getting much much harder to do.
E. Meyer
QZSdnQ3BVveZd3fX...@giganews.com, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
My point was that the "new" part with Hummer & Chrysler was that the
government forced it. I can't wait to see what happens the next time some
still existing American company tries to get the govt. to impose
anti-dumping levies against one of these companies that were forced off
shore by that same govt.
hls
I dont think American companies have been penalized nearly enough for
dumping, tying, and other economic infractions. Neither have the foreign
producers.
We have had a nutless government for a long time.
SMS
> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
> border.
It's very very different.
U.S. built vehicles made with high domestic content contribute a huge
amount of money to the U.S. economy, even if the stockholders of the
company are mostly outside the U.S.. Many of those vehicles are also
designed in the U.S..
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
The yards I frequent around Kitchener/Waterloo have lots of older
Hondas, and not so old Kias and Hyundais, along with PILES of GMs. a
few odd Chrysler and Fords. Very few Toyotas
Ford Escorts and Contour/Mystiques are getting more scarce - and the
contour/mystiques are generally going straight to the crusher.. Makes
it hard for me to find parts for mine.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>
Only if you are buying your USED Chevies from across the border
yourself. The manufacturer only gets paid for them ONCE.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
You ARE joking, I hope (about the clowns on Wall Street being SMART?)
Dave
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" <hair...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:o0vhe5hjrr57i7ek0...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>>
>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>>border.
>
> I was just guessing that the workers putting the cars together within
> our borders are getting paid for doing that.
> And that they spend some of their wages locally, providing even more
> work.
> Could be wrong though.
Too bad what you wrote didn't more closely resemble what you were guessing.
Dave
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:tjjme5dfldjpil0lg...@4ax.com...
If you think no money from Toyota or Honda sales ends up in Japan, you are
as big a fool as you seem.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
Never said that, dude. Of course some does. As will maney from
Hummers go to China. The guy in question said he always bought USED
Chevies - and some dummy said that he was crazy to do that because
they were made "across the border" - by which I assume he meant in
Canada if he was a Yank, or in the USA if he was a Canuk.
When you are buying USEED it doesn't matter WHERE it was made, because
the manufacturer got their money from the FIRST purchacer, and ONLY
from the first purchacer.
C. E. White
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4aeb2eec$0$1654$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Don't forget, even Americans can own Toyota stock (maybe not directly, but
it works out the same).
Ed
C. E. White
"Dave" <hair...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l1gimF...@mid.individual.net...
> If you think no money from Toyota or Honda sales ends up in Japan, you are
> as big a fool as you seem.
I know some money from Toyota and Honda ends up in Japan, but I also know
that money from Buick and Chevy sales ended up paying the ridiculously high
salaries of people like Rick Wagner....I am just not sure which should
disturb me more.
I also know there is a Toyota transmission plant in Durham, NC. The nearest
GM plant is so far away, I am not even sure where it is...Spring Hill TN I
guess (is it still open?). NC factories used to provide a lots of upholstrey
for US cars, but it sees "US" car companies are now buying a lot of this
from non-US suppliers. If GM is willing to buy from foreign suppliers,
doesn't that imply that I should be as well? If they can argue that to
remain competitive they have to purchase from foreign suppliers, can't I use
the same logic?
In my opinion, until US manufacturers quit buying from foreign suppliers,
there is no valid arguement that says I should purchase finished vehicles
from GM, or Ford becasue they ae "US" companies. I don't see much difference
in purchasing an F150 from Ford versus purchasing Toyota Tundra based solely
on who built it. I recently purchased an F150 because it was clearly the
superior vehicle (at least for my use). If the Tundra had suited me better,
I would have had no reservations about purchasing one becasue it was a
"Toyota."
Ed