Re: Ford Fusion reverse gear

Page 2 of 4  
Get real. Any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper preventive maintenance.
What happens in the real world is the longer one own a vehicle the more
poorly they have it maintained
Look at corporate fleet vehicles that are run for five year or 300,000 miles because federal corporate deprecation tax laws. They are extremely well maintained as a result

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike wrote:

The only thing I'm failing at is responding to a premier 'too much time on his hands' kinda troll. Firstly, prove me wrong about Toyota owners taking care of their cars more thoroughly compared to most other makes' owners, then explain how your contention, (though not strictly true) "any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper preventive maintenance" refutes my last post, and finally explain how the makes/models I've mentioned in the past as being more trouble prone RE: major expenditures is flawed. How many transmission overhauls are acceptable within the first 100k miles, Ford and Chrysler? LOL
--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You must live in a dream land. I owned several Ford that have never had a transmission problem and we serviced several thousands of Ford fleet vehicles that were run too 300,000 miles, or more, and never had a tranny problem.
How many miles can one expect from one of the thousands of Toyotas with the "Gelling Problem," as Toyota refers to their engines that sludge up, like the ones we had to replace?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike wrote:

Dear 'too much time',
about 1,000,000 miles. Thank you for your interest in the durability of superior Toyota engines. LOL
--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You certainly are entitled to your person opinion, no matter how convoluted it may be.
Apparently thousands of us previous owners did not agree with your personal opinion or we would have purchased anther Toyota model.
I suggest you take a look at all of the Toyotas one will see in the used car lots of non-Toyota dealership. If Toyotas were as good as you would have others believe, why have so many of us traded ours on other brands?
I purchased seven Toyotas and six Lexus' in my time till I finally realized they were no better or worse than other brands I have owned, just more expensive to buy and maintain. Since I switched to domestic brands I have saved thousand of dollar on the purchase price and hundred of dollars on maintenance costs.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ELEVEN cars? Holy crap man.
I have never once purchased a domestic car. I watched my folks go through the "American car" routine by way of a Chevy citation and two Ford Tauruses. Every one of them was a complete piece of crap. Actually, crap isn't the best word for it but there might be kids listening.....
Now since you proclaim your loyalty to buying domestic brands.....you'll have to tell me...what do you consider to be a domestic car? A Toyota that is built in Kentucky, a KIA built in Georgia, or a Chevy made in Canada, or a Dodge made in Mexico?
Best,
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hal wrote:

Please be prepared for the "Ya' right. LOL" response that signifies Mike as one of the premier debaters on usenet.
--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
To me a domestic vehicle is one that is built in north America by and American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased from American corporations.
A non-domestic vehicle IMO is one that is either imported or merely assembled in north American by a foreign corporation that primarily uses parts and MATERIALS that are either imported or supplied by other foreign corporations, rather than north American parts and MATERIALS purchase from American corporations, like those vehicles you mention.
Particularly onerous are those sold in the US by Japanese corporations who take all of the profits, earned on what they sell in the US, back to Japan US federal Corporate tax free.

ELEVEN cars? Holy crap man.
I have never once purchased a domestic car. I watched my folks go through the "American car" routine by way of a Chevy citation and two Ford Tauruses. Every one of them was a complete piece of crap. Actually, crap isn't the best word for it but there might be kids listening.....
Now since you proclaim your loyalty to buying domestic brands.....you'll have to tell me...what do you consider to be a domestic car? A Toyota that is built in Kentucky, a KIA built in Georgia, or a Chevy made in Canada, or a Dodge made in Mexico?
Best,
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good lucking finding a car that meets your criteria. Name one. I dare you. Hint: It isn't one of the cars you own now.

Are you serious? You need to go re-read the window sticker on your multitude of cars.

You know what the real problem is here? It isn't the fact that you didn't even bother to read my original post(read it again, you didn't have 11 cars, you had 13....). It's obvious that basic math escapes you.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler are marketing cars that they want to sell. Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, and the rest of the imports are marketing cars that people want to BUY. There's a big distinction there; you can draw the line of differentiation between the companies begging for a bailout, on on my dime I might add, versus the companies that are selling cars without that flaming socialist ass hat Obama giving my money to them.
You can take your opinion and shove it, guy. You're so full of it your eyes are brown. Wake up and smell the coffee, your domestic car is anything but.....
Best,
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hal wrote:

So that was a trick? I was thinking that *you* had math difficulties :-)
Mike makes many claims that are hard to believe, but I'm sure they are all true.
--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed it was. Further, the Kia plant in Georgia isn't even open yet. The guy doesn't read or comprehend before responding, he just throws out his view as being the almighty correct one without bothering to get the facts straight.

No arguments on that here.
Best,
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A '54 Hudson would fit the bill. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I own a 1941 Continental convertible, 1963 1/2 Mustang GT convertible, 1972 Ford LTD Brougham convertible, 1971 Pinto and a 1983 Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan, as well as a 2009 Mustang GT convertible and a 2010 Lincoln MKZ. The MKZ was made in Mexico ;)
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave D wrote:

Interesting indeed. A full year early, and amazingly with the then fairly rare GT package. Let me guess, his 63.5 Mustang GT also has the original Boss 429. Naturally Mikey boy will claim a typo, LOL.
--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
Actually Ford introduce the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred to it as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560, including taxes and fees. The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford Coupe," as PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA titled cars in the year they were first titled.
As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is no 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows. ;)
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually the production mustang was unveiled at the worlds fair in new york in april of 64, and was available to the public that same month. All other mustangs previous to that were only Prototypes and were never sold to the public.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This was my understanding as well. The first Mustang was available for sale on April 7th 1964. They sold 22 some odd thousand on the first day. The 64 is often referred to as a 64 1/2 because of the late release date.
Steve B.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never brought into production was the Mustang I, a car that made us salivate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_I
A couple were made, and at least one of them showed up at a race track and took some fast laps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike wrote:

No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.

No you haven't.

--
Toyota MDT in MO

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.