From: dr_jeff on 28 Oct 2009 20:51 Mike Hunter wrote: > Really? If that were true why does one see so many Fords and Chevy's at old > cars shows but hardly ever see any Toyotas or Hondas. If they are so good > where are the ones from the sixties and seventies? LOL What difference does it make? That was a different era. At that time, I was just a smile on my father's face. > > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > news:4ae87849$0$1594$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> C. E. White wrote: >> >>> This seems to discount the factor I am talking about - Toyota sales (both >>> in the US and Canada) have greatly increased over the last twenty years. >> These rankings are based on the number of vehicles originally sold, they >> are not raw numbers. Not sure what you're trying to say here. >> >> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual >> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that >> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or >> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much greater >> reliability. > >
From: C. E. White on 28 Oct 2009 21:41 "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:37772ce1-c6db-4f43-9043-d4ee11a70588(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > Ed > VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but > they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which > actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly > ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider > getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much > more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other > mfgrs. I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but I come down on the other side regarding VW. Never again. We have had four VW products in the family: 1981 Audi Coupe (mine) 1986 VW Jetta (older sister) 1992 VW Passat (youger sister) 1995 VW Jetta (SO's daughter) None of us ever will consider another VW product. I think we all agree they feel solid, drive nicely, look good, have good ergonomics, etc. We also all agree they are unrelaible, constantly suffer from irriating failures, and are expensive to own. The list of failures is long - power windows, cam bet tensioner, fuse box, fuel pumps, palstic bits, paint, dash intruments, motor mounts, A/C, tranmsission, clutch, suspesion bushings, etc., etc. > Yes, I love my old VWs and I wish I could have kept them all. > Especially my '84 Scirocco, I don't know what the hell I was thinking > when I sold that car. I'd probably still be driving it today. Yeah, I used to miss my British Sports Cars, but I got over it. Ed
From: C. E. White on 28 Oct 2009 21:32 ----- Original Message ----- From: "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> Newsgroups: alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,alt.autos.nissan,alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.tech Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:58 PM Subject: Re: What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road? > C. E. White wrote: > >> This seems to discount the factor I am talking about - Toyota sales (both >> in the US and Canada) have greatly increased over the last twenty years. > > These rankings are based on the number of vehicles originally sold, they > are not raw numbers. Not sure what you're trying to say here. OK, one of of us is missing something. Were the rankings based on all the cars of a particualr model sold during that 10 year eriod? If so, my arguement holds. As a percentage of the total number of Toyotas sold during the period, more f them would have been newer models. This is becasue Toyota sales were rapidly increasing during the period. I tried to show this effect in a prior post. It is a simple concept. Say during that period, Toyota sales were increasing 5% a year and GM sales were stagnent. percent number model orignal still on road still on road year sales in 2006 in 2006 ----- -------- ------------- ------------- Manufacturer with increasing sales ----- -------- ------------- ------------- 1986 100000 25% 25000 1987 105000 30% 31500 1988 110250 35% 38588 1989 115763 40% 46305 1990 121551 45% 54698 1991 127628 50% 63814 1992 134010 53% 71025 1993 140710 56% 78798 1994 147746 58% 85692 1995 155133 60% 93080 Total 1257789 47% 588499 ----- -------- ------------- ------------- Manufactuer with stagnent sales ----- -------- ------------- ------------- 1986 100000 25% 25000 1987 100000 30% 30000 1988 100000 35% 35000 1989 100000 40% 40000 1990 100000 45% 45000 1991 100000 50% 50000 1992 100000 53% 53000 1993 100000 56% 56000 1994 100000 58% 58000 1995 100000 60% 60000 Total 1000000 45% 452000 So, even though both manufacuters had the same percentage of each model year vehicles on the road, the ten year average for the manufacturer with increasing sales is 2% better than the manufacturer with stagnent sales. The actual different might be greater or less depending on the difference in growth rates and actual longevity of older vehicles. My point is, that unless you have the actual raw data (sales for each year, total number of vehicles sitll on the road for each mfg, etc) for each year, you cannot determine anything from a list that just says manufacturer X has Y% of car built over a ten year period still on the road. It seems like it means more than it does. > The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual > percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that > Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or > Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much greater > reliability. This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas have greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater reliability that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I certainly can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal experince that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American cars. In fact, I don't even think it is close given equal treatment. My Sister has owned two Honda. Both were rolling junk in less than ten years. My parents and myself owned a number of Fords over the same time periods she owned the Hondas and all of them were in better condition after ten years than either of the Hondas. I drove a 1986 Sable for ten years and more than a 140k miles and then sold it to a friend who drove it another 60k miles before wrecking it. My 1997 Expediton had two minor problems in 150k miles. I drove a 1992 F150 for 14 years and didn't have any problems until near the end (an alternator and a fuel pump). I sold it to the local water meter reader. He still uses it every day to read meters. The absolute worst car I ever persoanlly owned was a 1983 Toyota Cressida. It was by far the least relaible POS I ever owned. The paint literally vaporized. The trim all faded. The interior plastic turned white and got brittle. The transmission failed. The AC failed. The alternator failed every summer (I mean every summer). The starter failed. And this was all in less than 6 years and less than 6k miles. My SO, who loves Toyotas, had a late 80's Camry Wagon. She remembers it as a terrific car. I remember the bad paint,the crumbling interior plastic, the engine oil leaks, the transmission oil leaks, the bad alternator, etc. It was worse than any Ford I ever owned, BUT, she would tell you it was a wonderful car. Maybe I only see the bad things... But I am not joking when I say at the end it leaked so much oil that she wouldn't park it in the garage, and it killed all the grass where she parked it in the yard. And despite how great she thought the car was, the truth is she spent more money on repairs for that car than I spent on Fords in 15 years. OK, these are just my stories and have no general significance - EXCEPT to me. But whenever people tell me how great Toyotas and Honda are, I take it with a grain of salt. I can look out at the cars in my parking lot right now and see a couple of old Toyotas. They are not anything I would want. They smoke when they start, the paint is faded, one neighbor's Corolla is constantly in the shop (alternator, starter, missing, etc). My sisters 10 year old Civic was so horrible, I told her I wouldn't sell it for her because I would be embarresed to claim the car was worth buying. The amazing thing was, she sold the thing overnight with a Craigslist ad. The car was positively undriveable. Yet the guy that bought it, told me how great it was after a test drive. I wouldn't drive it to the grocercy store. Again, these are just my personal observations, but I have a hard time swallowing claims of extrodinary Toyota / Honda reliability based on what I have seen. I can't believe that I live in some alternate dimension where all the bad Toyotas and Honda get dumped. And before you think I am anti-Toyota, I'll point out that I just recommended to my Mother that she should buy a Toyota Highlander. I thought it was the car that best met her wants/needs and I do expect it to be reliable. BUT, I don't it expect it to be more reliable than the car it replaced - a 2005 Freestyle. I can't see how it could be more reliable since in nearly 5 years the Freestyle never needed a single repair (not one, none, zero). (The Freestyle was totaled in an accident). I also helped both my Sisters and my SO buy RAV4s. I was not as sold on the RAV4s as I was with the Highlander. I felt very strongly that the Highlander was the right vehicle at the right price for my Mother. I though the RAV4s were OK, but overpriced compared to a Ford Escape. One of the RAV4 replaced an Escape that was also totaled in an accident. When it was totaled the Escape had well over 100k miles and was 8 years old. It had one significant problem over the eight yearst - a leaky brake booster. My Siser was very happy with it, but I think shet decided to go with the flow and try something different when the Escape was wrecked. I am going to feel really bad if any of these Toyotas has problems, but I don't expect problems. This is not becasue I thnk Toyotas are exceptionally reliable. It is becasue I think Toyotas are of average reliability, but then average is very good these days. Ed
From: clare on 28 Oct 2009 21:45 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:41:40 -0400, "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > >"N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:37772ce1-c6db-4f43-9043-d4ee11a70588(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> Ed > >> VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but >> they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which >> actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly >> ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider >> getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much >> more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other >> mfgrs. > >I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but I come down on the >other side regarding VW. Never again. We have had four VW products in the >family: > >1981 Audi Coupe (mine) >1986 VW Jetta (older sister) >1992 VW Passat (youger sister) >1995 VW Jetta (SO's daughter) > >None of us ever will consider another VW product. I think we all agree they >feel solid, drive nicely, look good, have good ergonomics, etc. We also all >agree they are unrelaible, constantly suffer from irriating failures, and >are expensive to own. The list of failures is long - power windows, cam bet >tensioner, fuse box, fuel pumps, palstic bits, paint, dash intruments, motor >mounts, A/C, tranmsission, clutch, suspesion bushings, etc., etc. There isn't a "weiner wagon" made that isn't expensive to own. > >> Yes, I love my old VWs and I wish I could have kept them all. >> Especially my '84 Scirocco, I don't know what the hell I was thinking >> when I sold that car. I'd probably still be driving it today. > >Yeah, I used to miss my British Sports Cars, but I got over it. > >Ed
From: Nate Nagel on 28 Oct 2009 21:53
clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:41:40 -0400, "C. E. White" > <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > >> "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:37772ce1-c6db-4f43-9043-d4ee11a70588(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >>> Ed >>> VW's may have occasional niggling issues that other cars don't, but >>> they last. And last. And last. Until the body rusts apart, which >>> actually takes quite a long time, an A1 or A2 chassis VW will hardly >>> ever have something break that is major enough to make you consider >>> getting rid of it. They're also quite pleasant to drive, feel much >>> more solid and yet sporty than other similar products from other >>> mfgrs. >> I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but I come down on the >> other side regarding VW. Never again. We have had four VW products in the >> family: >> >> 1981 Audi Coupe (mine) >> 1986 VW Jetta (older sister) >> 1992 VW Passat (youger sister) >> 1995 VW Jetta (SO's daughter) >> >> None of us ever will consider another VW product. I think we all agree they >> feel solid, drive nicely, look good, have good ergonomics, etc. We also all >> agree they are unrelaible, constantly suffer from irriating failures, and >> are expensive to own. The list of failures is long - power windows, cam bet >> tensioner, fuse box, fuel pumps, palstic bits, paint, dash intruments, motor >> mounts, A/C, tranmsission, clutch, suspesion bushings, etc., etc. > > > There isn't a "weiner wagon" made that isn't expensive to own. At the time that I had them, aftermarket support for the A1 chassis cars was very good. I was able to keep them going on a shoestring budget. Didn't have most of the "typical" failures either. I did rebuild the suspensions on several of them but they had enough miles that I didn't consider it a failure of the car and the parts were cheap (well, except for the Koni struts - I did one car with cheap Boges and learned that sometimes you only get what you pay for and no more) and it was an easy job. Of course if you're not a DIY type that changes radically... paying someone to do that stuff can add up. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |