Toyota's massive recall woes halt production, ding top quality rep
in [Toyota Trucks]
|
Prev: Toyota's massive recall woes halt production, ding top quality rep
Next: Toyota's massive recall woes halt production, ding topquality rep
From: clare on 28 Jan 2010 13:54 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:39:53 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" ><elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote: > >>In article <4b60f302$0$22838$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, >> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: >> >>> Nothing, if that is what one has to do, but my question was WHY buy used >>> when one can afford to buy new? >>> >>> When one buys a used vehicle one can never know for sure how that vehicles >>> was used or abused, or if it was properly maintained or not. When does one >>> generally have the most problems with ANY vehicle, during the first 50,000 >>> or the last? >>> >>> When one buys used THEY are loosing the beginning mileage, the mileage that >>> is most likely covered by a warranty. What has one gained, IF one can >>> afford to buy new rather than used? >> >>Because one chooses not to spend his money that way. If you choose >>well, you don't have to worry about loosing the beginning/warranty >>mileage. >> >>But since you're biased against GM, it's no wonder you think the way you >>do. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to drive a GM, I'd >>avoid used like the plague, just like you. > >That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the >car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased >of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or >Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near >new car prices. >Then Mike is right about buying new. >But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good >used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for >100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it >anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some >minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change. >Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot. >Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02. >Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each. >Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my >bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am >I bought for my kids as their first cars. >Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know >everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run, >all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment. >I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the >350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense. >Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad. >But some people only want a new car. I can understand that. >I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high >depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2. >Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods. > >--Vic A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox 5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more. At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and Toyota offerings. Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs. The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill me financially. On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff. My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've owned, except the GM.
From: Mike Hunter on 28 Jan 2010 15:41 Perhaps you should be looking for a better job? <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message news:rsm3m5p27bsh4k69mismv5dphbstlp5ohn(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith > <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:39:53 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" >><elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <4b60f302$0$22838$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, >>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: >>> >>>> Nothing, if that is what one has to do, but my question was WHY buy >>>> used >>>> when one can afford to buy new? >>>> >>>> When one buys a used vehicle one can never know for sure how that >>>> vehicles >>>> was used or abused, or if it was properly maintained or not. When >>>> does one >>>> generally have the most problems with ANY vehicle, during the first >>>> 50,000 >>>> or the last? >>>> >>>> When one buys used THEY are loosing the beginning mileage, the mileage >>>> that >>>> is most likely covered by a warranty. What has one gained, IF one can >>>> afford to buy new rather than used? >>> >>>Because one chooses not to spend his money that way. If you choose >>>well, you don't have to worry about loosing the beginning/warranty >>>mileage. >>> >>>But since you're biased against GM, it's no wonder you think the way you >>>do. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to drive a GM, I'd >>>avoid used like the plague, just like you. >> >>That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the >>car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased >>of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or >>Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near >>new car prices. >>Then Mike is right about buying new. >>But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good >>used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for >>100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it >>anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some >>minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change. >>Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot. >>Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02. >>Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each. >>Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my >>bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am >>I bought for my kids as their first cars. >>Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know >>everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run, >>all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment. >>I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the >>350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense. >>Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad. >>But some people only want a new car. I can understand that. >>I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high >>depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2. >>Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods. >> >>--Vic > A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox > 5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers > outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more. > At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with > Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and > Toyota offerings. > Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs. > The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill > me financially. > > On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT > of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff. > > My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've > owned, except the GM.
From: Vic Smith on 28 Jan 2010 20:08 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:54:01 -0500, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith ><thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >>That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the >>car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased >>of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or >>Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near >>new car prices. >>Then Mike is right about buying new. >>But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good >>used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for >>100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it >>anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some >>minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change. >>Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot. >>Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02. >>Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each. >>Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my >>bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am >>I bought for my kids as their first cars. >>Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know >>everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run, >>all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment. >>I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the >>350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense. >>Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad. >>But some people only want a new car. I can understand that. >>I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high >>depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2. >>Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods. >> >>--Vic >A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox >5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers >outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more. "Value" is subjective with cars, not much different than clothes. How much cost does that little gator logo add to a shirt? Is that "value?" Wonder how much the Toyota shutdown is affecting Toyota resale value already. And it's got nothing to do with "reality." Perception becomes reality. If your comment about Ford/Chrysler vs GM is meant to suggest that it's better to pay $5000 for a used Chrysler/Ford than $2500 for an equivalent age/condition GM, it only indicates your perception of reality, not mine. If I can pay $2500 vs $5000 and get the same reliability/cost, I chose the $2500 reality. With the recent busting of financial balloons and debt, I suspect *all* used car prices to escalate. >At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with >Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and >Toyota offerings. No accounting for tastes, so you should drive what you want to drive. Personally, if a car is reliable, quiet on the highway, and decent on gas, I'm okay with it. I'm not into logos, and I laugh at commercials showing cars on mountain roads, not another car in sight, and just music playing while the beautiful chick in the passenger seat smiles at you as she touches the rich Corinthian leather with one hand and your crotch with the other. Somehow, my driving experience never works out like that. Well, not for about 30 years anyway. >Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs. >The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill >me financially. > >On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT >of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff. > >My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've >owned, except the GM. My luck is better. Always small stuff. Going way back, my '76 Caprice needed trans work, which cost me maybe 6 bills, but I only paid 9 bills for the car and drove it for years. Great road car. I do my own maintenance/repairs (actually now I mostly watch my wrencher kid do it) but when I was working and commuting I used a good mech who wasn't cheap, but fair. Still didn't spend much on fixes. In the last 40 years of the wife and I commuting while driving cheap Chevys we had 2 tows. Ignition switch failed on '90 Corsica and the ECU on my '88 Celebrity. Even including the tows, it didn't add to 500 bucks total for both fixes. I probably could get the same reliability with a Ford or Chryco if I got into them enough to know the right engine/trans combos and the quirks, but I figure concentrating on knowing one make very well has worked out fine. Gives me a big edge. Buying cheap cars only works if you know what you're doing. If I had no interest in wrenching at all, I'd just buy a new Corolla. No thinking about it, and cheaper in the long run. When somebody who has no knowledge or interest in the mechanics of cars asks me for car buying advice, but money is tight, I won't recommend any used car. Too much like a box of chocolates. Get a new Corolla. No surprises. --Vic
From: Vic Smith on 28 Jan 2010 21:46 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:36:55 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <i874m5dqog1usm5iopk2732lnsmdgnudrh(a)4ax.com>, > Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> No accounting for tastes, so you should drive what you want to drive. >> Personally, if a car is reliable, quiet on the highway, and decent on >> gas, I'm okay with it. > >Is "runs reliably" and "doesn't cost a fortune in repairs, both money >and time" anywhere in your equation for being "okay" with it? > >'Cuz it is in mine. I spelled all that out in what you clipped. Reliable is reliable. If it's always getting expensive repairs, "reliable" doesn't enter in. Pretty simple. No sense parsing it. If I say, as I did, that I had 2 tows in 40 years of 2 people driving/commuting/vacationing in old and cheap Chevys, and that my repairs were always cheap, what's hard to understand about that? Maybe you don't think that's "reliable." That's okay with me. Maybe I should also say that any fixes outside of the 2 tows, whether by me or my mech were scheduled, and didn't unduly inconvenience me. There, I said it. I was really thinking of the tech group when I was talking, so maybe it isn't clear to everybody. For me, putting a 20-40 buck water pump. or a 100 buck alt, or a 150 buck PS pump on a Chevy is less than an hour in my garage, and they all give warning before failure. Not saying it happens all the time, but it can be expected on the older Chevys I've bought. I almost always end up putting a water pump and alt in a high mileage (+100k) Chevy. Less often a PS pump. It's always a one-time deal, but you can expect to do that. The pumps and alts on GM's just don't have the quality/longevity you find on Toys. That's one reason the cars sell for less. People don't want to - or can't - deal with it. Doesn't bother me at all. If it did, I be driving new Hondas or Toyotas, and still be working instead of retired. Though I like working on cars, I like retirement even better. Everybody picks their own route. --Vic
From: clare on 28 Jan 2010 23:23
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:08:11 -0600, Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:54:01 -0500, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith >><thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the >>>car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased >>>of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or >>>Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near >>>new car prices. >>>Then Mike is right about buying new. >>>But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good >>>used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for >>>100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it >>>anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some >>>minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change. >>>Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot. >>>Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02. >>>Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each. >>>Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my >>>bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am >>>I bought for my kids as their first cars. >>>Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know >>>everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run, >>>all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment. >>>I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the >>>350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense. >>>Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad. >>>But some people only want a new car. I can understand that. >>>I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high >>>depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2. >>>Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods. >>> >>>--Vic >>A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox >>5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers >>outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more. > >"Value" is subjective with cars, not much different than clothes. >How much cost does that little gator logo add to a shirt? >Is that "value?" >Wonder how much the Toyota shutdown is affecting Toyota resale value >already. And it's got nothing to do with "reality." Perception >becomes reality. >If your comment about Ford/Chrysler vs GM is meant to suggest that >it's better to pay $5000 for a used Chrysler/Ford than $2500 for an >equivalent age/condition GM, it only indicates your perception of >reality, not mine. >If I can pay $2500 vs $5000 and get the same reliability/cost, I chose >the $2500 reality. Hey, I agree with you 100% - but the reality for me has been I don't GET the same reliability. Nor has anyone in my family, or many of my friends. If you buy NEW vehicles and keep them 5 years, GM is mabee as good as Ford or Chrysler. In some ways mabee even better. But buying 5 year old vehicles I've not found that to be true. The cost of operation for the second and third five year period is higher. Significantly. And Cadilac? Don't even get me started. Some of the Chrysler and Ford stuff is a bit harder to work on than some of the GM stuff, perhaps, but some of the GM stuff is also harder to work on than some of the other Ford or Chryco stuff - so that all boils down to what you buy. My Mystique and PT are both miserable to work on. My aerostars were too - but absolutely no worse than that dang TransSport!!! And I don't need to work on them as often. They are all harder to work on than my Corolla and Tercel were - and I DO need to do more work on them than I did on the Toys - but not enough difference for me to pay the premium for the used Toy or Honda at this stage in my life.. I will, however, pay a premium NOT to have to work on a GM.... Just my preference, from MY experience. The best car I've owned, cost and repairs per mile, in the last 25 years has been the old 1988 New Yorker I sold back in '06. Total cost of ownership, not counting oil, gas, insurance, licence and tires, was less than $500 per year over the 12 years I owned it. And it always looked good and rode well - right to the end. (and I've been a licenced mechanic since age 19 in 1971) >With the recent busting of financial balloons and debt, I suspect >*all* used car prices to escalate. > >>At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with >>Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and >>Toyota offerings. > >No accounting for tastes, so you should drive what you want to drive. >Personally, if a car is reliable, quiet on the highway, and decent on >gas, I'm okay with it. I'm not into logos, and I laugh at commercials >showing cars on mountain roads, not another car in sight, and just >music playing while the beautiful chick in the passenger seat smiles >at you as she touches the rich Corinthian leather with one hand and >your crotch with the other. >Somehow, my driving experience never works out like that. >Well, not for about 30 years anyway. > >>Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs. >>The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill >>me financially. >> >>On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT >>of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff. >> >>My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've >>owned, except the GM. > >My luck is better. Always small stuff. Going way back, my '76 >Caprice needed trans work, which cost me maybe 6 bills, but I only >paid 9 bills for the car and drove it for years. Great road car. >I do my own maintenance/repairs (actually now I mostly watch my >wrencher kid do it) but when I was working and commuting I used a good >mech who wasn't cheap, but fair. Still didn't spend much on fixes. >In the last 40 years of the wife and I commuting while driving cheap >Chevys we had 2 tows. Ignition switch failed on '90 Corsica and the >ECU on my '88 Celebrity. Even including the tows, it didn't add to >500 bucks total for both fixes. >I probably could get the same reliability with a Ford or Chryco if I >got into them enough to know the right engine/trans combos and the >quirks, but I figure concentrating on knowing one make very well has >worked out fine. Gives me a big edge. >Buying cheap cars only works if you know what you're doing. >If I had no interest in wrenching at all, I'd just buy a new Corolla. >No thinking about it, and cheaper in the long run. >When somebody who has no knowledge or interest in the mechanics of >cars asks me for car buying advice, but money is tight, I won't >recommend any used car. Too much like a box of chocolates. >Get a new Corolla. No surprises. > >--Vic > > |