GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
in [Toyota]
|
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 24 Mar 2007 20:22 "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message news:57udnd9J28CVIJjbnZ2dnUVZ_uGjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:PqiNh.5572$ya1.3267(a)news02.roc.ny... >> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >> news:orudnfwMiobmNpjbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>> JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:YgaNh.5398$B25.4(a)news01.roc.ny... >>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >>>> news:LYednVsAW7Yqu5jbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>>> >>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:KgQMh.5485$ya1.1505(a)news02.roc.ny... >>>>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:5bednTHQsovwyZ7bnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:9IAMh.5288$B25.1145(a)news01.roc.ny... >>>>>>>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence >>>>>>>> that is not anecdotal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Name one food you ate yesterday. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Breakfast: Oatmeal >>>>> Lunch: Ham sandwich with lettuce and cheese, some baked rice snack >>>>> chips, grapes >>>>> Afternoon snack: Ched-Airs >>>>> Dinner: At a local restaurant, sauteed perch, rice, steamed >>>>> vegatables, Bass pale ale >>>>> >>>>> What's your point? >>>> >>>> >>>> Your food list is anecdotal, and therefore 100% invalid. >>> >>> Wrong. I have a record of what I ate yesterday. Weight Watchers, you >>> see.I'm down 23 pounds since January. Try again. >> >> >> I have all the service records for my cars, including the ones I no >> longer own (don't ask why). Therefore, the information I provided about >> problems with my cars is absolutely, inarguably accurate. >> >> Try again. >> > Never said it wasn't. You said "All evidence is anecdotal." All evidence > is not anecdotal. Empirical evidence, for example, when you have a known > control value and your are looking for a difference from that value in > your observations, usually coupled with a measurable sample rate. Similar > to "scientific method." > > I'm done with you, you just want to argue for the sake of it. > My "all evidence" comment was meant as sarcasm. Unless you personally collect data, or you're present when an event occurs, it's reported to you by someone else whose data you cannot see. I made the comment because you (or someone else here) was beginning to sound like one of the 3 musketeers (dbu, splatt in florida, etc), who once said they don't read books because all authors have opinions.
From: dh on 24 Mar 2007 12:08 "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message news:25qdnYo3DbvwuJjbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message > news:4603db43$0$16402$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... >> "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:4603c4c9$0$4899$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:59:26 -0600, dh rearranged some electrons to >>> form: >>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >>>> news:5bednTHQsovwyZ7bnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated >>>> by >>>> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey. >>> >>> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain >>> gullible. >> >> Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and >> report on your findings? >> >> CR stays in business because they make their readers happy. They're not >> going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars. >> >> I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years >> ago. As a result, I have been buying Toyotas. >> > When it comes to cars' reliability, CR uses wide-scale "anecdotal" > evidence. Their reliability surveys make no mention of the sample size for > each vehicle or the percentage rate of problems reported in the survey, > not to mention the effect of owner's bias in the surveys. If I want to > buy a vacuum cleaner or a dishwasher, I'll read CU. If I want to buy a > car, I'll buy what I like. The careful application of wide-scale "anectdotal" evidence is what we call "statistics." I like Toyota's stats. Reliability is just one aspect of your transportation choice. There's capacity, comfort, value and lots of other dimensions. Buying a the car that's top rated for reliability just because it's top rated for reliability is pointless. However, if you value reliability (and I do), then it's part of the decision. I might like the looks of A better than B but if they serve equally well and B is ranked as more reliable, then I know I'm likely to be unhappy with A in the long run and I'll buy B. >> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years, >> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO >> problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a >> good combination of fuel economy and performance. >> > We owned a Toyota Avalon that had transmission problems and tire problems > (OK, tire problems aren't necessarily the fault of the manufacturer, but > still...) and a brand-new Honda Odessey minivan that had such a bad engine > oil leak Honda had to buy it back under Michigan's Lemon Law. Well, I can certainly understand why you would not buy another Honda or Toyota and I can't say I blame you. However, it appears that more people have been turned off by similar experiences with GM, Ford and Dodge than Toyota and Honda, which would explain their better resale value and higher reliability rankings. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Hairy on 24 Mar 2007 23:18 "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:LLSMh.5345$B25.3372(a)news01.roc.ny... > "DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message > news:4603db43$0$16402$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... >> "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:4603c4c9$0$4899$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:59:26 -0600, dh rearranged some electrons to >>> form: >>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >>>> news:5bednTHQsovwyZ7bnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated >>>> by >>>> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey. >>> >>> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain >>> gullible. >> >> Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and >> report on your findings? >> >> CR stays in business because they make their readers happy. They're not >> going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars. >> >> I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years >> ago. As a result, I have been buying Toyotas. >> >> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years, >> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO >> problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a >> good combination of fuel economy and performance. >> >> Maybe I'm gullible but I'm also happy to follow CRs advice. >> >> What are the other options? Listen to you? Hah! > > > You could base your purchases on opinions from an illiterate retired used > car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily basis. > :-) Oh, come on. Don't be so hard on yourself. We know you try......
From: FDRanger92 on 25 Mar 2007 00:10 Yeah I looked at CR when I bought my 92 Ranger 171K miles ago. Think they described my engine as a "primitive but reliable design". The truck didn't really get great marks as I recall particularly compared to the Toy, but it's held up better than most of the Toys purchased around the same time by people I've known. Can't really take CR too seriously since. Maybe some of you "toyota can do no wrong" people can 'splain to me why it was ok for toyota to intentionally try to hide the engine sludge problems they were having for so many years? "DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message news:4603db43$0$16402$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... > "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:4603c4c9$0$4899$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:59:26 -0600, dh rearranged some electrons to form: >>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message >>> news:5bednTHQsovwyZ7bnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence >>> >>> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated >>> by >>> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey. >> >> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain >> gullible. > > Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and > report on your findings? > > CR stays in business because they make their readers happy. They're not > going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars. > > I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years ago. > As a result, I have been buying Toyotas. > > I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years, > with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO > problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a good > combination of fuel economy and performance. > > Maybe I'm gullible but I'm also happy to follow CRs advice. > > What are the other options? Listen to you? Hah! > >> -- >> David M (dmacchiarolo) >> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled >> T/S 53 >> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 18 days 27 min > > That's nothing. We had individual Vaxes run for at least two years and > Vax clusters up for longer than that. And we weren't a 24X7 shop, that's > just how Vaxes worked. > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >
From: Mac Cool on 25 Mar 2007 04:57
JoeSpareBedroom: > 1992 Taurus (6 cyl): Used a quart every 2-3 months, from the time the > car was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it clear > what was happening. I had a 93 Taurus (6 cyl), ran it up to 190k, never used a drop of oil and the only mechanical problem was a water pump went out. Sold it to a Ford mechanic who is probably still driving it. Don't accept hearsay from a disgruntled employee as god given proof of some conspiracy. -- Mac Cool |