GM or Toyota
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Corolla steering problems
Next: {BS} FOX News using Gore's book to measure snowfall in front of Gore's house...
From: clare on 13 Feb 2010 01:00 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:37:14 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:54:44 -0500, clare wrote: > >>>And the emissions and safety requirements are different, too. >>> >>>Jeff >> Not to forget, how many countries would you need to drive through to >> cover the distance from NYC to Detroit - much less from Tampa to Seattle >> or Bangor Maine to SanDiego?????? In Britain it's pretty hard to drive 100 >> miles in a straight line. In most of Continental Europe it is the same. > > >But I sure would love to drive the road Princess Grace got killed on >driving down into Monaco... > Some beautifull curvy roads where the european style cars come into their own. American iron makes poor rallye cars too. When I was ralllying in my (relative) youth we had a 1972 Renault R12.. On the rough roads of central Africa the American cars would not have stood up well either. Killed my '67 Peugeot too. The '49 VW stood up pretty well, considering!!!
From: clare on 13 Feb 2010 01:10 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:46:31 -0800, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On 02/11/2010 05:59 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:28:50 -0800, jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/10/2010 06:16 PM, dr_jeff wrote: >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:46:16 +0000, Clive wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In message<4b72d99c$0$18644$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, Mike Hunter >>>>>> <Mikehunt2(a)lycos.?.invalid> writes >>>>>>> I guess the Toyota loyalist are worried they may get injured or >>>>>>> killed at >>>>>>> worst and the retail value of their cars will plummet at best. >>>>>> Or perhaps it's just that they're global with a car that passes the >>>>>> criteria of all governments whereas for instance the EU is very >>>>>> strict on >>>>>> what cars can be sold in it's area, which is why firms like Ford and GM >>>>>> have to make a totally different product for the EU. >>>>> >>>>> That why they don't sell US designed cars there? >>>>> >>>>> The UK version of the Escort was pretty close to the US version. >>>>> OTOH, GM had to buy Vauxhaul to get an 'in' in European markets. >>>>> I've heard they're junk, too... >>>> >>>> A large part of why there are different cars for different markets is >>>> that the markets have different needs. The Japanese and European markets >>>> have fuel that is like 3 or 4 times higher than the price of fuel in the >>>> US. SO fuel economy is more important than in the US. In addition, both >>>> Europe and Japan are much more interested in fuel economy than we are in >>>> the US. In both markets, there is less room for cars, so smaller cars >>>> are more useful. >>>> >>>> And, besides this, the people have different tastes. In the US, for >>>> years people have liked big boat-type cars. In Europe, people have >>>> preferred smaller, more nimble cars. For example, Olds was advertising >>>> that it had the first 4-wheel independent suspension car made in the US >>>> in 1987 or 1988. The Peugeot 504 on which I learned to drive had >>>> four-wheel indpendent suspension 13 years earlier. >>> >>> vw have been 4-wheel independent since the 30's. those french citroen >>> 2cv's were in the 40's. the fiat 500 was independent in the 50's. it's >>> basically only detroit garbage that is /still/ being sold with >>> horse-and-cart solid axles. >>> >>> >> >> And only a VERY few of even them. Basically the truck based stuff and >> the Mustang. > >well, the "truck based stuff" includes suv's, and they used to be 50% of >the market. then you have all the taxi's, highway patrol vehicles, and >all that larger stuff like the camaro, impala, etc. there really is no >excuse. > They used to be 50% of the market in the USA - but not in Canada. All the highway patrol vehicles up here, virtually, were either Crown Vic based (RWD) or FWD Chevys untill the Charger took a bite out of the market. ALL of the RWD passenger car offerings from Chrysler are independent rear suspension. The Camaro is also 4 wheel independent. The Crown Vic /Pursuit Special is history. SO - what is still being sold with the "horse and cart" axle is the Mustang and a FEW of the compact SUVs. - and most of the light trucks and BIG SUVs > > > > >>>> >>>> And the emissions and safety requirements are different, too. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>
From: clare on 13 Feb 2010 01:26 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), jr92 <coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 11, 10:40 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:56:32 -0500, IYM wrote: >> > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:08:38 -0500, clare wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:03:57 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:13:48 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote: >> >> >>>>> That is largest number of different types of vehicles, as well as the >> >>>>> highest total number, ever recalled by ANY other vehicle manufacturer >> >>>>> in history according the AP story. >> >> >>>> Bullshit. Ford had a recall of 12M vehicles for exploding cruise >> >>>> controls. >> >> >>> You need to look at the total number of vehicles each company had on >> >>> the road at the time of the recalls, and the number involved. >> >> >>> The percentage of Toyotas on the road subject to recall, even with the >> >>> MASSIVE recalls currently under way, are significantly lower than the >> >>> percentage of either Ford or GM over the years. >> >> >> You're preaching to the chior. Over the years GM Ford and Chysler have >> >> recalled millions and millions of vehicles for even more serious issues >> >> than this; Ford even got away with issuing dashboard stickers for >> >> transmissions that could slip from Park to Reverse. >> >> > OMG! I remember that! But it wasn't that they would slip into >> > reverse...I had a '76 Ford Granada with a automatic tranny that when you >> > put it in park it occasionally wouldn't engage fully in the tranny, but on >> > the column it was fine. The first time I discovered this, I had parked it >> > on a very slight incline, got out of the car and started to walk away and >> > then I heard "tick-tick-tick-tick..." getting progressively faster and >> > looked to see the car rolling away! Had to run after it, unlock it while >> > moving and jump in to hit the brake...Glad there was nothing around! lol >> > Thier fix at the time was to issue a letter that said that this might >> > happen and you should use the parking brake to prevent it from >> > happening... lmao! NO car companies would not get away with that now, but >> > Ford is a much different and better company now than in the 70's....and >> > you have to remember too - Recalls were a "growing" evolution of car >> > manufacturers and Gov'ts during that time. Back in the 60's 50's, 40's - >> > There were no recalls...Things that happened on cars were considered >> > "quirks" and owners were much more involved in the maintenance and fix of >> > the cars than they are today's consumers, who demand 100% perfection all >> > the time - no mistakes. So to say that "they got away with..." when you >> > are referencing anything before, oh say around 1980 is kind of unfair. >> > In fact, wasn't it the whole Ford Pinto gas tank thing in the 70's that >> > really got the Gov't involved and the whole ball rolling on recalls and >> > manufacturer's responsibility? >> >> All true. What galls me is the people attacking TOyota and overlooking >> some of these magnificent recalls from American companies, like recalls >> are something new.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > >Recalls are by far nothing new. I remember when the likes of USA Today >would front-page ANY recall GM or Ford had, no matter how insignicant >it would be as far as safety or reliability was concerned. > >The big thing is the total number of recalls the Toyotas are having >today. It's totally in the tens of millions over the past few years, >and like a snowball rolling downhill, growing on an almost daily >basis. You can whitewash it any way you want, they have major issues >to deal with. > >And, unlike the tire pressure monitor, or dome light malfunction, or >heaven forbid, the leaking gasket recalls GM had in the 80's and 90's, >Toyota has REAL safety and relibility issues. > >Sludging engines. Due to overly optimistic extended drain recommendations. > >Rusting suspensions. Talking the old Tercel recall, or the recent pickup frames? As late as the early '80s , or whenever GM stopped using full frames on their cars, GM also had a SERIOUS frame rusting problem. The early Ford Taurus line had a serious problem with subframe mounts rusting off, litterally drolpping the subframes off the body. (due to body-mount washers disintegrating) The 80-81 Tercel rear suspension rustout was fairly limitted to the "rust belt" and when doing the recall, well less than 10% even here in "salt central" Ontario required replacement. The recall involved punch testing, and rustproofing those that passed the punch test. Some had internal coating (like paint) from the factory, and some did not. I THINK it was a dual source situation. Toyota used to ALWAYS have 2 sources for everything. 2 different brake suppliers. 2 different tail-light suppliers. 2 different headlight suppliers, 2 different suspension strut suppliers, etc way back when all toyotas were made in Japan. They were interchangeable as an assembly although parts did not necessarily interchange between assemblies. > >Throttles sticking wide open. ( EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Sticking partway open, yes - but , except for the floor mat issue, virtually NEVER without warning. The sticky throttle has ALWAYS been a "progressive failure" - with pedal effort increasing before the throttles stuck. > > >Braking issues. Which have NOT been "brake failure" - it is a brake "feel" issue and it only shows up in situations where braking is affected already - like rough and/or slippery roads - where if you are driving sensibly for the conditions it will NOT cause an accident. Nothing mechanical either. > > >If you feel that Toyota is being unfairly attacked, then you know >exactly how I feel about the way GM has been attacked for the past >25-30 years. > But GM deserved it every bit as much as Toyota. > >Now, just compare the things on which the GM and Toyota were attacked. In many cases the same things.
From: Björn Helgason on 13 Feb 2010 03:02 On 13 Feb, 06:26, cl...(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), jr92 > > > > > > <coachros...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 11, 10:40 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:56:32 -0500, IYM wrote: > >> > Hachiroku ???? wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:08:38 -0500, clare wrote: > > >> >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:03:57 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:13:48 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote: > > >> >>>>> That is largest number of different types of vehicles, as well as the > >> >>>>> highest total number, ever recalled by ANY other vehicle manufacturer > >> >>>>> in history according the AP story. > > >> >>>> Bullshit. Ford had a recall of 12M vehicles for exploding cruise > >> >>>> controls. > > >> >>> You need to look at the total number of vehicles each company had on > >> >>> the road at the time of the recalls, and the number involved. > > >> >>> The percentage of Toyotas on the road subject to recall, even with the > >> >>> MASSIVE recalls currently under way, are significantly lower than the > >> >>> percentage of either Ford or GM over the years. > > >> >> You're preaching to the chior. Over the years GM Ford and Chysler have > >> >> recalled millions and millions of vehicles for even more serious issues > >> >> than this; Ford even got away with issuing dashboard stickers for > >> >> transmissions that could slip from Park to Reverse. > > >> > OMG! I remember that! But it wasn't that they would slip into > >> > reverse...I had a '76 Ford Granada with a automatic tranny that when you > >> > put it in park it occasionally wouldn't engage fully in the tranny, but on > >> > the column it was fine. The first time I discovered this, I had parked it > >> > on a very slight incline, got out of the car and started to walk away and > >> > then I heard "tick-tick-tick-tick..." getting progressively faster and > >> > looked to see the car rolling away! Had to run after it, unlock it while > >> > moving and jump in to hit the brake...Glad there was nothing around! lol > >> > Thier fix at the time was to issue a letter that said that this might > >> > happen and you should use the parking brake to prevent it from > >> > happening... lmao! NO car companies would not get away with that now, but > >> > Ford is a much different and better company now than in the 70's....and > >> > you have to remember too - Recalls were a "growing" evolution of car > >> > manufacturers and Gov'ts during that time. Back in the 60's 50's, 40's - > >> > There were no recalls...Things that happened on cars were considered > >> > "quirks" and owners were much more involved in the maintenance and fix of > >> > the cars than they are today's consumers, who demand 100% perfection all > >> > the time - no mistakes. So to say that "they got away with..." when you > >> > are referencing anything before, oh say around 1980 is kind of unfair. > >> > In fact, wasn't it the whole Ford Pinto gas tank thing in the 70's that > >> > really got the Gov't involved and the whole ball rolling on recalls and > >> > manufacturer's responsibility? > > >> All true. What galls me is the people attacking TOyota and overlooking > >> some of these magnificent recalls from American companies, like recalls > >> are something new.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Recalls are by far nothing new. I remember when the likes of USA Today > >would front-page ANY recall GM or Ford had, no matter how insignicant > >it would be as far as safety or reliability was concerned. > > >The big thing is the total number of recalls the Toyotas are having > >today. It's totally in the tens of millions over the past few years, > >and like a snowball rolling downhill, growing on an almost daily > >basis. You can whitewash it any way you want, they have major issues > >to deal with. > > >And, unlike the tire pressure monitor, or dome light malfunction, or > >heaven forbid, the leaking gasket recalls GM had in the 80's and 90's, > >Toyota has REAL safety and relibility issues. > > >Sludging engines. > > Due to overly optimistic extended drain recommendations. > > >Rusting suspensions. > > Talking the old Tercel recall, or the recent pickup frames? > As late as the early '80s , or whenever GM stopped using full frames > on their cars, GM also had a SERIOUS frame rusting problem. > The early Ford Taurus line had a serious problem with subframe mounts > rusting off, litterally drolpping the subframes off the body. (due to > body-mount washers disintegrating) The 80-81 Tercel rear suspension > rustout was fairly limitted to the "rust belt" and when doing the > recall, well less than 10% even here in "salt central" Ontario > required replacement. The recall involved punch testing, and > rustproofing those that passed the punch test. Some had internal > coating (like paint) from the factory, and some did not. I THINK it > was a dual source situation. > Toyota used to ALWAYS have 2 sources for everything. > 2 different brake suppliers. 2 different tail-light suppliers. 2 > different headlight suppliers, 2 different suspension strut suppliers, > etc way back when all toyotas were made in Japan. They were > interchangeable as an assembly although parts did not necessarily > interchange between assemblies. > > >Throttles sticking wide open. ( > > EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Sticking partway open, yes - but , except > for the floor mat issue, virtually NEVER without warning. The sticky > throttle has ALWAYS been a "progressive failure" - with pedal effort > increasing before the throttles stuck. > > >Braking issues. > > Which have NOT been "brake failure" - it is a brake "feel" issue and > it only shows up in situations where braking is affected already - > like rough and/or slippery roads - where if you are driving sensibly > for the conditions it will NOT cause an accident. Nothing mechanical > either. > > > > >If you feel that Toyota is being unfairly attacked, then you know > >exactly how I feel about the way GM has been attacked for the past > >25-30 years. > > But GM deserved it every bit as much as Toyota. > > > > >Now, just compare the things on which the GM and Toyota were attacked. > > In many cases the same things. Problem was GM never fixed it that is why they died and went to .........
From: ACAR on 13 Feb 2010 07:09
On Feb 10, 11:13 am, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: snip > Toyota CURRENTLY is in the midst of the widest ranging world wide recall, > ever since the various governments around the world enacted legislation to > REQUIRE auto manufactures recall their dangerous vehicles. > snip I thought Toyota's goal was to be number one...and so they are! |