From: Tegger on 27 Oct 2009 17:31
clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote in
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv>
>>I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars
>>older than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.
> You need to read the claim.
> 80% of vehicles sold over the last 20 years are still on the road.
> This could be true even if NO 20 year old Toyotas were still on the
> road. There are still a significant number of 1989 Toyotas on the
> road, particularly in the south, and California (where the majority
> were sold in the beginning)
That's why I said "unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here
[in the Rust Belt]". Sure, it's possible Toyota's figures are accurate if
you include the dry southwest. Cars stay rust-free for a /long/ time down
Informal survey by myself today:
Mileage covered: about 100
Number of cars observed: thousands, I'm sure
Number of cars obviously over 20 years in age: one (~'85 Olds Cutlass)
Number of cars that were older than 1993: maybe 20
I would say that the overwhelming bulk of the cars I saw today were between
five and ten years old.
From: Vic Smith on 27 Oct 2009 17:31
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:42:36 -0400, "C. E. White"
>I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of
>the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am
>also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it
>sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of
>marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be
>more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.
Didn't see this before I posted about R. L. Polk.
I don't feel as sure as you do about Toyota telling the "truth."
If that "truth" has no real relevance to me, or deceives me in any
way, it fails my test as "truth."
As you said about the Chevy trucks, even registration raw data can't
One of my sons does truck front ends all day.
He knows more about trucks than any registration database.
You might think that a guy that plows snow with a Chevy 3/4 ton
knows about snow plowing with Chevy trucks.
You'd probably be wrong if you catch him early on.
My son could tell you that he has to fix them all the time because
they just can't handle a plow.
Sometimes accumulated "anecdotes" of real experience mean more than
A few honest high volume mechanics can provide more useful information
about real costs and repairs than the cloudy info found in Consumers
Not knocking CR, as it has it uses, but there's more than one way to
skin a cat.
From: Vic Smith on 27 Oct 2009 17:38
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>which answer your questions using that data.
>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
best for their purpose.
If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
once in a while, just about any will do.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 27 Oct 2009 17:39
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>>which answer your questions using that data.
>>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
> Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
> Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
> best for their purpose.
> If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
> the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
> once in a while, just about any will do.
Uh, your words do not qualify as data. Thanks for playing.
From: Tegger on 27 Oct 2009 17:44
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote in
> Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
> It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
> "imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
> No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
> analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
> the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
> they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
Another thing not covered in that Desrosiers document: Annual mileage. It's
one thing to have a vehicle still registered for the road, but quite
another to have it registered but rarely actually going anywhere.
A lot of much older cars get relegated to second or third-car status and
sit in the driveway a lot. People become unwilling to trust the old heap to
go very far without breaking down.
How many of those "80% of Toyotas still on the road" are actually still
covering close to the mileages they did when new? We'll never know, I