Toyota trucks == Rust Buckets

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: desy
Lol
Thats right Toyota is magic, the service centers on the sides of their buildings are for oil changes and fixing other manufacturers stuff 😀

😉

Their cars drive to 300,000 conservatively. Have a friend whose original-engine-Tacoma drove to 450K.

GMs that do that without a new part breaking every week are one in a trillion. That's why you never see an American car older than 10 years on the streets.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: desy
Lol
Thats right Toyota is magic, the service centers on the sides of their buildings are for oil changes and fixing other manufacturers stuff 😀

😉

Their cars drive to 300,000 conservatively. Have a friend whose original-engine-Tacoma drove to 450K.

GMs that do that without a new part breaking every week are one in a trillion. That's why you never see an American car older than 10 years on the streets.

So I take it my Grand Prix that I sold with 250k miles on it is a fluke (it was 11 years old), and so is my uncle's '94 Ram with 350k is an odd ball, and my 7 year old Dakota that has been largely trouble free if going to explode, even though the engine hasn't had any work outside of spark plugs and oil in the last 99,000 miles.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: desy
Lol
Thats right Toyota is magic, the service centers on the sides of their buildings are for oil changes and fixing other manufacturers stuff 😀

😉

Their cars drive to 300,000 conservatively. Have a friend whose original-engine-Tacoma drove to 450K.

GMs that do that without a new part breaking every week are one in a trillion. That's why you never see an American car older than 10 years on the streets.

So I take it my Grand Prix that I sold with 250k miles on it is a fluke (it was 11 years old), and so is my uncle's '94 Ram with 350k is an odd ball, and my 7 year old Dakota that has been largely trouble free if going to explode, even though the engine hasn't had any work outside of spark plugs and oil in the last 99,000 miles.

No, you are just mistaken. All someone did was take a marker and write over Honda with Pontiac. Damn they sure fooled you.
What I'm still trying to figure out how my 88 cherokee has made it over 250K and has had only regular maintenance.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It is most certainly not willful ignorance. To suggest than _any_ of the current GM cars will drive for 300,000 miles without more than a $500 repair is, however.

The Toyota's do this no problem.

Further, you're welcome to point out Toyota has supply problems, but that's not the point. The point is how they've handled it in the past, how they're handling this situation, and how they will continue to handle problems like these, and the effect it has on consumer confidence. If Toyota and Honda were on the verge of bankruptcy and only surviving thanks to continued life support from the government, these supply quality control issues would be much greater problems. Toyota's not going anywhere; they're more than solving the problems with current vehicles, so the whole point is moot.

Even the rednecks are figuring out Toyota just plain makes a better truck. See the linked BBC video above.

I spent a hell of a lot more than $500 getting my '88 Accord (meticulous maintenance) to "only" 217,000 miles. In fact, I spent several thousand on repairs to get it there, and even then the floorpan rusted out and I had to replace the transmission at 205,000 miles. In terms of overall reliability, the Ford Explorers my father owned had fewer problems. Significantly fewer actually.

To claim that a Toyota will automatically go 300,000 miles without more than $500 in non-maintenance repairs is to be living in a fantasy world.

The fact is that the overall quality levels of a brand new Toyota, a brand new Ford, and a brand new Chevrolet are not meaningfully different.

ZV

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It is most certainly not willful ignorance. To suggest than _any_ of the current GM cars will drive for 300,000 miles without more than a $500 repair is, however.

The Toyota's do this no problem.

Further, you're welcome to point out Toyota has supply problems, but that's not the point. The point is how they've handled it in the past, how they're handling this situation, and how they will continue to handle problems like these, and the effect it has on consumer confidence. If Toyota and Honda were on the verge of bankruptcy and only surviving thanks to continued life support from the government, these supply quality control issues would be much greater problems. Toyota's not going anywhere; they're more than solving the problems with current vehicles, so the whole point is moot.

Even the rednecks are figuring out Toyota just plain makes a better truck. See the linked BBC video above.

I spent a hell of a lot more than $500 getting my '88 Accord (meticulous maintenance) to "only" 217,000 miles. In fact, I spent several thousand on repairs to get it there, and even then the floorpan rusted out and I had to replace the transmission at 205,000 miles. In terms of overall reliability, the Ford Explorers my father owned had fewer problems. Significantly fewer actually.

To claim that a Toyota will automatically go 300,000 miles without more than $500 in non-maintenance repairs is to be living in a fantasy world.

The fact is that the overall quality levels of a brand new Toyota, a brand new Ford, and a brand new Chevrolet are not meaningfully different.

ZV

I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

Our Buick would develop a new problem ever time we didn't put Shell gas in it. Sold that, got an 88 Camry, drove it for 10 years until 2005, no problems.

Friend told me about his aunt's Monte Carlo which she had to dump $25k into within the first year of owning it (brand new off lot).

http://www.thebiglot.com/used-...chevrolet_for_sale.asp
They don't bother building any name recognition. Keeps Consumer Reports from ever being able to give a "reliability" rating.

In short, they're doing it wrong, and it's no surprise they're bankrupt.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux


I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

Our Buick would develop a new problem ever time we didn't put Shell gas in it. Sold that, got an 88 Camry, drove it for 10 years until 2005, no problems.

Friend told me about his aunt's Monte Carlo which she had to dump $25k into within the first year of owning it (brand new off lot).

http://www.thebiglot.com/used-...chevrolet_for_sale.asp
They don't bother building any name recognition. Keeps Consumer Reports from ever being able to give a "reliability" rating.

In short, they're doing it wrong, and it's no surprise they're bankrupt.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove by listing almost every car ever made by chevy since the company was founded, but whatever.

I have personally owned a toyota that was in and out of the shop more times than I could afford to repair. While GM has been reliable for me. I actually fell for the BS propogated by Consumer reports that toyota was ultra reliable and boy was I disillusioned fast.

 

[Farang]

From 116k-160k. my toyota ate up 3 starters, an alternator, a head gasket, a clutch, a battery, and a fan belt. Most of these due to operator error (like driving without coolant), but I digress..

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

No, you said, and I quote, "without more than a $500 repair". That's very different from what you're claiming now.

I'm pretty damn sure that the $1,900 I spent to rebuild the Accord's transmission was more than $500. Unless you see a problem with that math. So was the cost to rebuild the failed A/C unit. And the rust repairs (twice before I gave up) were both over $500. Replacing both front calipers when they froze was a little more than $500 too.

Imports do not automagically last forever and domestics do not fall apart as soon as they leave the lot.

ZV

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Friend told me about his aunt's Monte Carlo which she had to dump $25k into within the first year of owning it (brand new off lot).

Not only do domestics fall apart the day you leave the lot, it doesn't come with any warranty either. But don't quote me on it because I heard from a friend of a friend who's best friend with that friend.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: marincounty


No, Toyota didn't kick OUR asses in the truck dept. They kicked Detroit's ass in car sales.
Or maybe you didn't notice Toyota's sales increasing as GM's sales fell.

And the Tundra was the 2008 Motor Trend Truck of the year.

Most companies have won car or truck of the year. Motor Trend requires the vehicle to be new or significantly updated.

the new tundra and new silverado were released within 2 weeks of each other. motor trend specifically chose to end the 'year' during those two weeks so that it didn't have to put them head to head. during each of those years i'm fairly certain no other trucks were new, though i think the dodge was substantially reworked one of those 'years'

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

Our Buick would develop a new problem ever time we didn't put Shell gas in it. Sold that, got an 88 Camry, drove it for 10 years until 2005, no problems.

Friend told me about his aunt's Monte Carlo which she had to dump $25k into within the first year of owning it (brand new off lot).

http://www.thebiglot.com/used-...chevrolet_for_sale.asp
They don't bother building any name recognition. Keeps Consumer Reports from ever being able to give a "reliability" rating.

In short, they're doing it wrong, and it's no surprise they're bankrupt.

So that $700 charge for dealing with the electrical nightmare in my '99 Camry was all in my head? That's an expensive delusion.

Seriously, you need to get over it. Toyota isn't perfect and American cars aren't as bad as most make them out to be. Personally I have an issue with the fact that Toyota made two extremely similar and very dangerous mistakes on their vehicles. One mistake wouldn't be a surprise but not learning from it, even if they buy back the vehicles, shows someone isn't doing their job.

 

[KevinCU]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It is most certainly not willful ignorance. To suggest than _any_ of the current GM cars will drive for 300,000 miles without more than a $500 repair is, however.

The Toyota's do this no problem.

Further, you're welcome to point out Toyota has supply problems, but that's not the point. The point is how they've handled it in the past, how they're handling this situation, and how they will continue to handle problems like these, and the effect it has on consumer confidence. If Toyota and Honda were on the verge of bankruptcy and only surviving thanks to continued life support from the government, these supply quality control issues would be much greater problems. Toyota's not going anywhere; they're more than solving the problems with current vehicles, so the whole point is moot.

Even the rednecks are figuring out Toyota just plain makes a better truck. See the linked BBC video above.

http://www.jdpower.com/corpora...leases/pdf/2009043.pdf

Page 3.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It is most certainly not willful ignorance. To suggest than _any_ of the current GM cars will drive for 300,000 miles without more than a $500 repair is, however.

The Toyota's do this no problem.

Further, you're welcome to point out Toyota has supply problems, but that's not the point. The point is how they've handled it in the past, how they're handling this situation, and how they will continue to handle problems like these, and the effect it has on consumer confidence. If Toyota and Honda were on the verge of bankruptcy and only surviving thanks to continued life support from the government, these supply quality control issues would be much greater problems. Toyota's not going anywhere; they're more than solving the problems with current vehicles, so the whole point is moot.

Even the rednecks are figuring out Toyota just plain makes a better truck. See the linked BBC video above.

I spent a hell of a lot more than $500 getting my '88 Accord (meticulous maintenance) to "only" 217,000 miles. In fact, I spent several thousand on repairs to get it there, and even then the floorpan rusted out and I had to replace the transmission at 205,000 miles. In terms of overall reliability, the Ford Explorers my father owned had fewer problems. Significantly fewer actually.

To claim that a Toyota will automatically go 300,000 miles without more than $500 in non-maintenance repairs is to be living in a fantasy world.

The fact is that the overall quality levels of a brand new Toyota, a brand new Ford, and a brand new Chevrolet are not meaningfully different.

ZV

I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

Our Buick would develop a new problem ever time we didn't put Shell gas in it. Sold that, got an 88 Camry, drove it for 10 years until 2005, no problems.

Friend told me about his aunt's Monte Carlo which she had to dump $25k into within the first year of owning it (brand new off lot).

http://www.thebiglot.com/used-...chevrolet_for_sale.asp
They don't bother building any name recognition. Keeps Consumer Reports from ever being able to give a "reliability" rating.

In short, they're doing it wrong, and it's no surprise they're bankrupt.

So using the wrong brand of gas caused specific problems? huh? and how could your friend's aunt "dump" $25K into the Monte Carlo if she bought it brand new ? I guess no one at the dealership told her that her repairs were covered under warranty so she shelled out more than the value of the car in one year out of her own pocket?, your not making any sense here..

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: nerp
I can't tell you how many FOrd and GMs in the mid to late 90s I've seen with defective paint and those peeling and expanding circles.

This crap happens to all manufacturers one time or another.

Quit arguing. It's lame.

Paint problems and severe frame rust are vastly different issues. One make the vehicle look bad, the other is a safety concern.

No, they're both flaws in the manufacturing process. That was my point. It happens to everyone. It can happen to a component that is important for safety or not. But it happens to everyone. Saying Toyota is garbage because of this one issue ignores the fact that nearly every manufacturer at one point or another put out cars with components that were defective.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: nerp
I can't tell you how many FOrd and GMs in the mid to late 90s I've seen with defective paint and those peeling and expanding circles.

This crap happens to all manufacturers one time or another.

Quit arguing. It's lame.

Paint problems and severe frame rust are vastly different issues. One make the vehicle look bad, the other is a safety concern.

No, they're both flaws in the manufacturing process. That was my point. It happens to everyone. It can happen to a component that is important for safety or not. But it happens to everyone. Saying Toyota is garbage because of this one issue ignores the fact that nearly every manufacturer at one point or another put out cars with components that were defective.

The process control you use on paint and what you use on structural components required to keep you from dying should be drastically different. It's a basic idea from failure modes and effects analysis (a six sigma tool which Toyota is huge on). You focus your energy on the possible failures that have the worst outcome and spend less time on failures that could be considered annoyances. On a car bad paint could be considered a failure but nobody will die from it.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: nerp
I can't tell you how many FOrd and GMs in the mid to late 90s I've seen with defective paint and those peeling and expanding circles.

This crap happens to all manufacturers one time or another.

Quit arguing. It's lame.

Paint problems and severe frame rust are vastly different issues. One make the vehicle look bad, the other is a safety concern.

No, they're both flaws in the manufacturing process. That was my point. It happens to everyone. It can happen to a component that is important for safety or not. But it happens to everyone. Saying Toyota is garbage because of this one issue ignores the fact that nearly every manufacturer at one point or another put out cars with components that were defective.

The process control you use on paint and what you use on structural components required to keep you from dying should be drastically different. It's a basic idea from failure modes and effects analysis (a six sigma tool which Toyota is huge on). You focus your energy on the possible failures that have the worst outcome and spend less time on failures that could be considered annoyances. On a car bad paint could be considered a failure but nobody will die from it.

You're exponding on your safety vs. cosmetic argument but I'm suggesting that you're bringing up mere details to a greater issue that no automaker is immune to. Yes, there should be measures to prevent a defect from entering the supply of parts that are critical for safety. Nobody disputes that. What I'm saying is that the possibility of a defect on any type of part exists for engine, structural, cosmetic, interior and exterior parts and I'd wager that every automaker has had a bad batch of parts at some point or another. I recall a lot of VWs for a time had a key engine component put in upside down (something to do with the rings), but not all VWs. You had no real way of knowing you were affected by it until the engine had chewed itself apart after 25,000 miles. THis isn't so much a safety issue as a severe error in the manufacturing. BUt it's an error in manufacturing and so is an improperly treated metal frame, a gas tank that tends to explode upon rear impact and the myriad airbag and electrical system problems that many domestic and foreign automakers have experience.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Man, this thread turned into a mess...

It is disconcerting to see the rust problem applies to Tundras as well as Tacomas, and the Toyota apologists are just sad.

Toyota has strict quality control and I suspect Dana supplied exactly what Toyota asked for.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: KevinCU

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It is most certainly not willful ignorance. To suggest than _any_ of the current GM cars will drive for 300,000 miles without more than a $500 repair is, however.

The Toyota's do this no problem.

Further, you're welcome to point out Toyota has supply problems, but that's not the point. The point is how they've handled it in the past, how they're handling this situation, and how they will continue to handle problems like these, and the effect it has on consumer confidence. If Toyota and Honda were on the verge of bankruptcy and only surviving thanks to continued life support from the government, these supply quality control issues would be much greater problems. Toyota's not going anywhere; they're more than solving the problems with current vehicles, so the whole point is moot.

Even the rednecks are figuring out Toyota just plain makes a better truck. See the linked BBC video above.

http://www.jdpower.com/corpora...leases/pdf/2009043.pdf

Page 3.

Wow.
Game. Set. Match.

That's only the first 3/4 years though.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I said more than $500 in any one repair bill.

No, you said, and I quote, "without more than a $500 repair". That's very different from what you're claiming now.

I'm pretty damn sure that the $1,900 I spent to rebuild the Accord's transmission was more than $500. Unless you see a problem with that math. So was the cost to rebuild the failed A/C unit. And the rust repairs (twice before I gave up) were both over $500. Replacing both front calipers when they froze was a little more than $500 too.

Imports do not automagically last forever and domestics do not fall apart as soon as they leave the lot.

ZV

"without more than a $500 repair"
"I said more than $500 in any one repair bill."

Uh, those things mean the exact same thing...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
"without more than a $500 repair"
"I said more than $500 in any one repair bill."

Uh, those things mean the exact same thing...

No, no they don't. If you think they do, then perhaps it's time to get a refund for those ESL classes.

"Without more than a $500 repair" is equivalent to "without more than a single $500 repair". The singularity is implied. It is decidedly not equivalent to "more than $500 in any one repair".

Even if you were right about the equivalency, which you aren't, there are still more than enough counterexamples to show that your claim is incorrect. You know this full well, which almost certainly explains why you are focusing on defending your nonstandard understanding of sentence structure.

ZV

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: KevinCU
http://www.jdpower.com/corpora...leases/pdf/2009043.pdf

Page 3.

Wow.
Game. Set. Match.

That's only the first 3/4 years though.

Note the Scion (aka: Toyota) is towards the bottom as well.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: nerp
You're exponding on your safety vs. cosmetic argument but I'm suggesting that you're bringing up mere details to a greater issue that no automaker is immune to. Yes, there should be measures to prevent a defect from entering the supply of parts that are critical for safety. Nobody disputes that. What I'm saying is that the possibility of a defect on any type of part exists for engine, structural, cosmetic, interior and exterior parts and I'd wager that every automaker has had a bad batch of parts at some point or another. I recall a lot of VWs for a time had a key engine component put in upside down (something to do with the rings), but not all VWs. You had no real way of knowing you were affected by it until the engine had chewed itself apart after 25,000 miles. THis isn't so much a safety issue as a severe error in the manufacturing. BUt it's an error in manufacturing and so is an improperly treated metal frame, a gas tank that tends to explode upon rear impact and the myriad airbag and electrical system problems that many domestic and foreign automakers have experience.

Yes, every car company has had issues with quality or a design flaw but the quality control should be slanted towards things that have a much worse outcome if they go wrong. Also, the whole idea of quality control is to fix errors as you find them. I'm sure that VW made sure after the issue with their engine failures that it wouldn't happen again. The fact that Toyota had a very similar problem with their vehicles before only to have it show up again shows that somebody dropped the ball.

 

[boomhower]

My Dad had one of the rusted out Tacomas, I believe it was a '99 and he bought new. As they said they bought it back to blue book retail plus 10%. Oddly enough, he bought another new Tacoma.

 

[theeedude]

?????? = ?????

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: KevinCU
http://www.jdpower.com/corpora...leases/pdf/2009043.pdf

Page 3.

Wow.
Game. Set. Match.

That's only the first 3/4 years though.

Note the Scion (aka: Toyota) is towards the bottom as well.

Huh? Toyota + Lexus are at the top.