From: dr_jeff on
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

"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

----- 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
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
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