GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
in [Toyota]
|
From: Ed White on 27 Mar 2007 13:50 On Mar 27, 11:21 am, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...(a)mindspring.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:08:25 GMT, "Whitelightning" > > > > > > <white.lightni...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > >"Scott in Florida" <askifyouw...(a)mindspring.net> wrote in message > >news:un7i03tvfd4ki39breqcddspvfakidfpjj(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:33:52 GMT, "Whitelightning" > >> <white.lightni...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > >>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down > >>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled > >>>service was performed by a Toyota dealership. > > >> That is simply not true. > > >> No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a dealer > >> developed sludge.... > > >> -- > > >> Scott in Florida > > >I suggest Scott you do some research , try back issues of the St. Petersburg > >Times and the Tampa Tribune as well as the Orlando papers. The States > >Atternoy General got involved in the rucus in Florida and there was talk of > >a class action suit 3, 4 years ago. > > >Whitelightning > > I repeat. > > No one has developed sludge in a Toyota engine if they changed their > oil as recommended by Toyota. Always hard to prove a negative. I doubt you can prove that at least one Toyota owner did suffer from sludge even though they changed their oil as recommended. > No one has posted valid receipts to prove they changed oil and > developed sludge. You are addressing a fairly small audience here. Only a small percentage of people who have read this newsgroup ever had a sludge problem and an even smaller percentage could produce years worth of reciepts for oil changes. I do my own oil changes. I can find reciepts for the filters and oil, and I can even show you entries in my log book, but I am sure you would not consider these "valid reciepts." > One thing Toyota did was install a maintenance reminder light to keep > soccer moms from developing sludge due to not changing their oil. An excellent idea. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html Ed
From: Scott in Florida on 27 Mar 2007 14:26 On 27 Mar 2007 10:50:16 -0700, "Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 27, 11:21 am, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...(a)mindspring.net> >wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:08:25 GMT, "Whitelightning" >> >> >> >> >> >> <white.lightni...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >"Scott in Florida" <askifyouw...(a)mindspring.net> wrote in message >> >news:un7i03tvfd4ki39breqcddspvfakidfpjj(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:33:52 GMT, "Whitelightning" >> >> <white.lightni...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Thats funny the poor maintanece claim was by Toyota who was turning down >> >>>warranty claims even when the owners had reciepts showing every scheduled >> >>>service was performed by a Toyota dealership. >> >> >> That is simply not true. >> >> >> No one that had their oil changed at the correct intervals at a dealer >> >> developed sludge.... >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Scott in Florida >> >> >I suggest Scott you do some research , try back issues of the St. Petersburg >> >Times and the Tampa Tribune as well as the Orlando papers. The States >> >Atternoy General got involved in the rucus in Florida and there was talk of >> >a class action suit 3, 4 years ago. >> >> >Whitelightning >> >> I repeat. >> >> No one has developed sludge in a Toyota engine if they changed their >> oil as recommended by Toyota. > >Always hard to prove a negative. I doubt you can prove that at least >one Toyota owner did suffer from sludge even though they changed their >oil as recommended. I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct interval. Of course I haven't talked to them all, but I've never heard from one that said they fixed a sludged engine with the proper oil changes. > >> No one has posted valid receipts to prove they changed oil and >> developed sludge. > >You are addressing a fairly small audience here. Only a small >percentage of people who have read this newsgroup ever had a sludge >problem and an even smaller percentage could produce years worth of >reciepts for oil changes. I do my own oil changes. I can find reciepts >for the filters and oil, and I can even show you entries in my log >book, but I am sure you would not consider these "valid reciepts." The only reason I say dealer oil changes, is that I KNOW they were done. I'd bet everything I have that your engines contain no sludge. You change your oil. > >> One thing Toyota did was install a maintenance reminder light to keep >> soccer moms from developing sludge due to not changing their oil. > >An excellent idea. > >http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html > >Ed You think this person changed their oil? Inez of Lanett AL (03/13/07) My motor just quit. I knew that my oil changes were current, well, current enough not to warrant a blown motor. I could feel something the week before happening to my car, but wasn't sure. -- Scott in Florida
From: Whitelightning on 27 Mar 2007 22:48 "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant(a)mindspring.net> wrote in message news:q0oi03tjfspu6ftgk9ceqim3iaah04su4t(a)4ax.com... > On 27 Mar 2007 10:50:16 -0700, "Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never > fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct > interval. Do yoiu really think they would tell you otherwise? > > Of course I haven't talked to them all, but I've never heard from one > that said they fixed a sludged engine with the proper oil changes. > Whitelightning
From: C. E. White on 28 Mar 2007 21:28 I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The Tundra clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually NEED trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really do much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than the competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 feet shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually correct it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something that was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver 2007 pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge 1500 - 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet. So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag race your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck. Ed
From: Larry on 29 Mar 2007 13:36
On Mar 28, 9:28 pm, "C. E. White" <cewh...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is > deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major > full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you > which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of > the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The Tundra > clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually NEED > trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear > demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really do > much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final > statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than the > competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the > start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be > interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 feet > shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained > during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually correct > it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something that > was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road > Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping > distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A > similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver 2007 > pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge 1500 - > 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet. > So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional > brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag race > your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck. > > Ed I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested a FWD Fusion. Larry |