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
JoeSpareBedroom
news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be a
>very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last twenty
> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20
> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last
> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models.
> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more likely
> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the
> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the
> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually
> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars
> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am sure
> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over
> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in
> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers?
State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might
need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines & newspapers
can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", though. It
might cost money.
C. E. White
"JoeSpareBedroom" <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:08EFm.33212$eJ4....@newsfe07.iad...
I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has
amassed the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL
Polk is in the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming
longevity often reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim,
but I can't access the raw data without paying for it. I was hoping
there was an open source (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version,
available to the public. Without being to actually see the data, it is
hard to know how to treat the claims based on the data. I once wrote
Chevy and asked about their claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting
most reliable trucks. All they said was that it was based on RL Polk
registration data for a particualr period. Of course without actually
ahving access to the data, I can't see how the claim means anything.
Even worse, even if I had the raw registration data, I doubt it is
meaningful unless you also know how the trucks were actully used. I
always assumed that a higher percentage of Chevy trucks were purchased
by suburban users than was the case for Ford (i.e., more Fords were in
commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and therefore the Chevy trucks
were more liekly to be gently used, better cared for, and used less,
so therefore registration data byear alone would tend to suggest they
lasted longer... which might not really be true for vehicles used in
the same manner by similar populations of users.
I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"
sums up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration
data. I've always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data,
but that they have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer
builds perfect vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data,
sooner of later someone is going to demand to see the bad data as
well, and use a lawsuit to pry it out into the open. Better to make
unverifiable claims based on third party information that can be
checked but don't actually prove anything.
I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of
the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am
also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it
sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of
marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be
more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.
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.
JoeSpareBedroom
Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
which answer your questions using that data.
While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
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
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
Vic Smith
<cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of
>the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am
>also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it
>sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of
>marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be
>more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.
>
Didn't see this before I posted about R. L. Polk.
I don't feel as sure as you do about Toyota telling the "truth."
If that "truth" has no real relevance to me, or deceives me in any
way, it fails my test as "truth."
As you said about the Chevy trucks, even registration raw data can't
help.
One of my sons does truck front ends all day.
He knows more about trucks than any registration database.
You might think that a guy that plows snow with a Chevy 3/4 ton
knows about snow plowing with Chevy trucks.
You'd probably be wrong if you catch him early on.
My son could tell you that he has to fix them all the time because
they just can't handle a plow.
Sometimes accumulated "anecdotes" of real experience mean more than
"real" statistics.
A few honest high volume mechanics can provide more useful information
about real costs and repairs than the cloudy info found in Consumers
Reports.
Not knocking CR, as it has it uses, but there's more than one way to
skin a cat.
--Vic
Vic Smith
<news...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>which answer your questions using that data.
>
>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
>
Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
best for their purpose.
If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
once in a while, just about any will do.
--Vic
JoeSpareBedroom
news:bopee5dvn10i356ol...@4ax.com...
Uh, your words do not qualify as data. Thanks for playing.
Tegger
> 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
Vic Smith
Wasn't talking about data. Just your reference to "bullshit claims"
that different people buy different trucks for different purposes.
Hardly "bullshit."
Everybody know that. Show me the data that most people wipe their ass
after taking a dump.
Never mind. I know that.
--Vic
JoeSpareBedroom
I never said people did not buy trucks for different purposes. Rather, Mr.
White claimed that certain types of people bought particular brands as "fun
trucks", and other brands as "work trucks". Example (paraphrasing): "Nobody
buys Tundras as work trucks." I've explained that I've never seen actual
data to back this up, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else, ever.
I'd like to be proven wrong, but not using anecdotes.
Vic Smith
<news...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>I never said people did not buy trucks for different purposes. Rather, Mr.
>White claimed that certain types of people bought particular brands as "fun
>trucks", and other brands as "work trucks". Example (paraphrasing): "Nobody
>buys Tundras as work trucks." I've explained that I've never seen actual
>data to back this up, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else, ever.
>
Didn't see that. You sensitive about Tundra because it's a Toyota?
>I'd like to be proven wrong, but not using anecdotes.
>
I'll try to remember to ask my kid about that. He works on all kinds
of truck suspensions all day, every day.
Don't know if he sees many Tundras though. Some of that stuff is
regional.
But he has no "prejudice" among brands. Though he's a solid GM car
fan, he digs the Ford trucks. For professional reasons.
But what you'll get from all his experience will be an anecdote.
--Vic
JoeSpareBedroom
....and a very small sample.
It would be great if state motor vehicle departments would add a little
questionaire to their forms. "How will you use this truck?"
1) Family transportation
2) Towing a sport vehicle or boat
3) Farming
4) Building trades
That sorta thing. Just because they could do it.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
<news...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
See plenty of Tuindra "work" trucks. And lots of Ford "Toy" trucks
Vic Smith
<news...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:rsree5hqibu7cf8qj...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:07:09 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I never said people did not buy trucks for different purposes. Rather, Mr.
>>>White claimed that certain types of people bought particular brands as
>>>"fun
>>>trucks", and other brands as "work trucks". Example (paraphrasing):
>>>"Nobody
>>>buys Tundras as work trucks." I've explained that I've never seen actual
>>>data to back this up, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else, ever.
>>>
>> Didn't see that. You sensitive about Tundra because it's a Toyota?
>>
>>>I'd like to be proven wrong, but not using anecdotes.
>>>
>> I'll try to remember to ask my kid about that. He works on all kinds
>> of truck suspensions all day, every day.
>> Don't know if he sees many Tundras though. Some of that stuff is
>> regional.
>> But he has no "prejudice" among brands. Though he's a solid GM car
>> fan, he digs the Ford trucks. For professional reasons.
>> But what you'll get from all his experience will be an anecdote.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>
>....and a very small sample.
>
Maybe. But I'd listen to him if I were buying a work truck.
It would be a Ford.
I asked him about the Tundra, and he said they're pretty much the same
as the Chevys, except all he sees is small beds and doesn't know if
they even make an 8' bed.
Says mostly fucking Polacks buy them because they easily fall into the
"Toyota Spell." He's a Polack himself, so that don't mean much.
Did say the tie rods are a bit beefier than the Chevys, but the ones
he's seen don't appear to made for hauling. Calls it a "luxury
truck."
You'd think a guy who has a business and pulls trailers and equipment
would know what truck to buy, right?
Nope. He's had many such Dodge owners complain about the rear end
wagging all over when pulling something.
It's got coils in the back. The answer is: you got the wrong truck.
Bottom line is he's a solid Ford fan for work trucks, due to the solid
front axle and general robustness.
Even the lighter independent front suspension Fords have ties rods
much beefier than the others and ball joints in the spindles make for
quick and cheaper ball joint replacement.
Does say the non-Fords have a softer ride.
Just relaying what he said. An anecdote.
Ain't my fault what he said.
--Vic
Peter Hill
<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.
>
>Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
I have real prod figures and real numbers on UK DVLA registration /
taxation database.
Many cars don't get taken off the register. UK had a purge a few years
back by swapping to a new style log book. Anyone selling a car got a
new log book, then it was when they taxed the vehicle for the road and
they had a final mop up where people that had un-taxed vehicles off
the road could send in for new log book.
Taxation laws that require a vehicle to be declared as being off the
road annually have also meant people are less likely to hang on to a
project car or "doer up". As a declaration has been signed that the
vehicle is off the road and thus not liable for road tax being caught
with it on the road is tax evasion and not "oh sorry I must have
forgot".
RHD European cars production numbers from NISSAN FAST database CD ER1,
so UK + Ireland and a few for Cyprus - maybe 6 or 7% not for UK. Only
the ones that came to UK will be on DVLA database. Bear in mind
there's at least 2 months between cars being made and first sales, the
boat trip takes 4-5 weeks. There was also overlap on RS13 and S14 as
old stock ran out slowly, the DVLA made no distinction between S13 and
S14 during the overlap. Limited number in first year will be pre-prod
bucks and test mules.
Silvia RS12U FJ20E & CA18ET
Year prod DVLA registered
1983 2 0
1984 3134 57
1985 2906 91
1086 2296 88
1987 690 119
1988 1009 100
1989 ---- 50
Looks like 505 out of 10037 = 5% over 20 years old.
200SX RS13U CA18DET
Year prod DVLA registered
1988 532 0
1989 2822 338
1990 2088 487
1991 2978 594
1992 1827 575
1993 1267 441
1994 ---- 456 (S14 went on sale Sept)
I've got a Dec '93 built RS13U that was registered new in UK Dec '94,
may even be some '95 reg. 11508 made, less than 2891 left, 25% of over
15 years and up to 20 year old cars.
200SX GBAS14U SR20DET
Year prod DVLA registered
1993 16
1994 788 see RS13
1995 1298 508 (some could be old stock RS13U)
1996 425 552
1997 1178 569
1998 1143 605
1999 70 833
2000 ---- 508
2001 ---- 59
4848 made, of the last 455 made 26 went to Ireland and 5 to Cyprus.
3094 left so over 7 years old and up to 15 there's about 63% left.
The attrition rate is possibly higher than it would be for sad gray
porridge. A leading UK car guide says of the RS13 "Dangerous in the
wrong hands". Lots fall off roundabouts sideways, quite a few have
gone though hedges anyways round or up, up trees, been wrapped round
telegraph poles. At least one has knocked down and rail slid sideways
the full length of a lamp post, driver said hitting his head on the
roof rail above the door hurt a bit.
Don't ask about anything else, if it isn't an S platform I couldn't
give a...
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
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
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>Maybe. But I'd listen to him if I were buying a work truck.
>It would be a Ford.
>I asked him about the Tundra, and he said they're pretty much the same
>as the Chevys, except all he sees is small beds and doesn't know if
>they even make an 8' bed.
>Says mostly fucking Polacks buy them because they easily fall into the
>"Toyota Spell." He's a Polack himself, so that don't mean much.
>Did say the tie rods are a bit beefier than the Chevys, but the ones
>he's seen don't appear to made for hauling. Calls it a "luxury
>truck."
>You'd think a guy who has a business and pulls trailers and equipment
>would know what truck to buy, right?
>Nope. He's had many such Dodge owners complain about the rear end
>wagging all over when pulling something.
>It's got coils in the back.
Nothing wrong with a properly designed and built coil spring
suspension system, and fully capable of pulling a properly set up
trailer.
> The answer is: you got the wrong truck.
>Bottom line is he's a solid Ford fan for work trucks, due to the solid
>front axle and general robustness.
Has ford fixed their shitty steering linkage problem yet? Brother is
an alignment tech - OEM Ford front ends burn tires off at an alrming
rate due to the "rubber" tie rod ends and other linkage parts. Only
way to fix them is put on GOOD aftermarket parts. This was a problem
at least up antill a very few years ago.
>Even the lighter independent front suspension Fords have ties rods
>much beefier than the others and ball joints in the spindles make for
>quick and cheaper ball joint replacement.
>Does say the non-Fords have a softer ride.
>Just relaying what he said. An anecdote.
>Ain't my fault what he said.
King Ranch F150 (2008) rides softer than the big cab Tundra (2008). -
both 4X4, both unloaded.
>
>--Vic
>
>
>
>
>
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.
nm...@wt.net
>
> Maybe. But I'd listen to him if I were buying a work truck.
> It would be a Ford.
It's fairly well known that Fords are a bit tougher in general.
The older ones in particular. The 1/2 tons even more particular,
as the Chevy half tons have a suspension that is not much
different than a large car. Where as the Fords used twin I
beams.
I've had plenty of both makes, and for work, I would say the
Ford hands down. Not to say the Chevy can't work, but they
won't take the brutal abuse the Fords will.
It may be anecdotal, but I've always preferred Chevy's for
street trucks, and Fords for work trucks.
I still have two Fords at this time. A 68 F-250, and a 74 F-100.
Both run great and I wouldn't be afraid to drive either one anywhere.
Both have six bangers, "300 in the 68, and a 240 in the 74",
both have manual's, and both are so simple and rugged that
you have to be really mean on a vehicle to kill one of them.
Wonder how many 40+ year old cars are still on the road,
and pretty much driven regularly... My 68 F-250 is one of them.
Course like any vehicle, upkeep has to be done.
I'm not saying the engine hasn't been rebuilt and the front end
is original.. I put a new long block in it in about 2002, and
totally rebuilt the front end, including king pins in about 2004.
But for a 41 year old truck, it runs good and is totally reliable
So easy to work on too. You can actually climb in under the
hood of mine to be next to the engine. :/
Parts changes are a breeze. I can rebuild Carter 1 barrels in less
than an hour.
The 68 with the granny gear 4 speed would probably rip
trees out of the ground with the low RPM torque the 300
has. I know it would drag my Corolla down the street kicking
and screaming the whole way if they were connected by chains.
:)
But my favorite street trucks I've had were both Chevy's,
and both had 250 sixes.. A 66, and a 72. Both were step
sides. I had Blazer buckets and console in the 72. Good
street trucks.. The 66 was a step with the small back window.
It's older 250 had more guts than the semi smog version in the
72..
The heaviest duty Chevy truck I had was a 78 3/4 ton. It was
fairly stout as far as Chevy's go. But the front end wasn't quite
as stout as the twin I beams on a older 3/4 ton Ford.
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...
C. E. White
"JoeSpareBedroom" <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:7MEFm.33364$eJ4....@newsfe07.iad...
> "C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:4ae71565$1@kcnews01...
>
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>> news:08EFm.33212$eJ4....@newsfe07.iad...
>>> "C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>>> might
>>> need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines &
>>> newspapers
>>> can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if",
>>> though. It
>>> might cost money.
>>
>> I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has
>> amassed the registration data for all the US into a huge database.
>> RL Polk is in the buisness of selling this information. Ads
>> claiming longevity often reference RL Poolk data as the source of
>> the claim, but I can't access the raw data without paying for it. I
>> was hoping there was an open source (i.e. free), possibly a
>> simplified version, available to the public. Without being to
>> actually see the data, it is hard to know how to treat the claims
>> based on the data. I once wrote Chevy and asked about their claim
>> that Chevy makes the longest lasting most reliable trucks. All they
>> said was that it was based on RL Polk registration data for a
>> particualr period. Of course without actually ahving access to the
>> data, I can't see how the claim means anything. Even worse, even if
>> I had the raw registration data, I doubt it is meaningful unless
>> you also know how the trucks were actully used. I always assumed
>> that a higher percentage of Chevy trucks were purchased by suburban
>> users than was the case for Ford (i.e., more Fords were in
>> commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and therefore the Chevy
>> trucks were more liekly to be gently used, better cared for, and
>> used less, so therefore registration data byear alone would tend to
>> suggest they lasted longer... which might not really be true for
>> vehicles used in the same manner by similar populations of users.
>>
>> I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars
>> figure" sums up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk
>> registration data. I've always assumed that manufacturers actually
>> have good data, but that they have no intention of publishing it.
>> No manufactuer builds perfect vehciles, and if they start putting
>> out the good data, sooner of later someone is going to demand to
>> see the bad data as well, and use a lawsuit to pry it out into the
>> open. Better to make unverifiable claims based on third party
>> information that can be checked but don't actually prove anything.
>>
>> I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80%
>> of the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road.
>> I am also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but
>> that it sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect
>> sort of marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily
>> missunderstood to be more significant than it is. At least that is
>> how I see it.
>>
>>
>
>
> Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published
> articles which answer your questions using that data.
>
> While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your
> bullshit claims about what types of people buy certain brands of
> trucks for particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul
> groceries and the dog").
I can have an opinion or make assumptions about how trucks are used. I
don't think my assumptions or opinions are the same as "data." If you
disagree with my opinions, I get that. But you need to recognize the
difference between opinions and data. Maybe I need to include "I
think," or "I beleive," or "it seems like" in front of every
statement, but wouldn't that be tiresome. And of course, you need to
do the same. When I present something as a fact, I usually try to cite
a source. Otherwise you can assume my statemens represent an opinion,
a persoanl observation, or an assumption. The statements may indeed be
wrong, or silliy, or even stupid, but they are mine.
As for how trucks are used, I can only go by what I see in my little
corner(s) of the world. Mostly, where I farm, the overwhelming choice
for pickups are Ford SuperDuties with a few F150s. Then Chevy
Silverados (mostly HD), and then Dodges (again, mostly HD). I know one
farmer with a Frontier (like I used to have), but he also has an F250.
I also know one farmer with a Tundra (the old better style). He has an
F250 also. Most of the "new" Tundras I see are parked in town. They
are new, clean, and shiny with mostly empty beds. I realize this might
be too small a sample to be meaningful beyond my area, but it is the
best I have. Maybe where you live, all the contractors love Tundras.
Where I live it seems Tundras are mostly owned by people who have day
jobs in town and plenty of time to polish the truck. It seems unlikely
to me that Contractors overwhelmingly prefer Tundras anywhere given
the relatively poor Tundra sales. Even when the new Tundra sales were
"great" they had less than 10% of the big pickup market. So unless all
the Tundra are going to contractors, it seems unlikely they can be
that common as contractor trucks anywhere. The local electric co-op
did buy one this year. It will be interesting to see if they buy more
in the future. They buy based on sealed bids, so I guess the Toyota
dealer gave them the lowest price.
Ed
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.
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
James Fenimore
like urban crimes as reported periodically by law enforcement are
always "down."
There's no way for example that Toyota could ever accurately -- or
honestly -- compile the numbers cited in their ads.
Most boob-tubers that are glued to their boob tubes like boobs believe
that if "it's" on TV, it must be true.
Criminals like Bush-Cheney-Rove know this and it's why they aired
those lies that got us trapped into our noble Middle East wars.
Scoundrels like Limbaugh and Hannity employ the same tactic, knowing
that their audiences are less than informed, much less of the
inquiring type.
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
Mike Hunter
Grand Marquis in Florida and Arizona. There are a large percentage of older
folks in those states, that are more highly educated with higher incomes,
who 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 small or
midget cars that do not do nearly as well with longevity because they are
more likely to keep them till they, or the car, dies.
I think one reason one may keep their Toyota longer than average new car
buyer, is the average Toyota buyers are older and more likely to be female.
They buy cars like they buy their appliances. They rely on what they read
in magazine like CR etc., rather than real car guys that read magazines like
Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track etc. ;)
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae8670c$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net...
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.
dr_jeff
> Perhaps your personal opinion explains why there are so many Crown Vic's and
> Grand Marquis in Florida and Arizona. There are a large percentage of older
> folks in those states, that are more highly educated with higher incomes,
> who 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 small or
> midget cars that do not do nearly as well with longevity because they are
> more likely to keep them till they, or the car, dies.
>
> I think one reason one may keep their Toyota longer than average new car
> buyer, is the average Toyota buyers are older and more likely to be female.
> They buy cars like they buy their appliances. They rely on what they read
> in magazine like CR etc., rather than real car guys that read magazines like
> Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track etc. ;)
If you think that you are not biased, you are mistaken. In addition, if
you think that Car and Driver has better advice on which cars to buy
than CR, you are also mistaken. ANd in the 2009 C and D ten best, only
two were American brands (Caddy CTS and Corvetter). So, if you are
saying C and D is for real cars guys, then the real car guys are saying
buy from overseas.
Jeff
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.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
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
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
> "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?
>>
>
>
> 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....
Mike Hunter
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:K8CdnQLlSOHhe3XX...@giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Perhaps your personal opinion explains why there are so many Crown Vic's
>> and Grand Marquis in Florida and Arizona. There are a large percentage
>> of older folks in those states, that are more highly educated with higher
>> incomes, who 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 small or midget cars that do not do nearly as well with longevity
>> because they are more likely to keep them till they, or the car, dies.
>>
>> I think one reason one may keep their Toyota longer than average new car
>> buyer, is the average Toyota buyers are older and more likely to be
>> female. They buy cars like they buy their appliances. They rely on what
>> they read in magazine like CR etc., rather than real car guys that read
>> magazines like Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track etc. ;)
>
> ANd in the 2009 C and D ten best, only two were American brands (Caddy CTS
> and Corvetter). Jeff
>
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.
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.
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
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
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
mmhutch...@gmail.com
SC Tom
<mmhutch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93933ec9-104f-4840...@googlegroups.com...
> your statements more. You hit the nail (s) on the head completely.
agree with :-)
--
SC Tom
CRNG
<nf6rhk$bbg$1...@dont-email.me>
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.
Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.autos.ford/dIPMM62Apvs
10-27-09
cl...@snyder.on.ca
paint is still shiny and virtually rust free at 343000km in the
central Ontario salt belt
Google "cayman green long ranger" to find pictures on ranger station.