State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might
need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines & newspapers
can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", though. It
might cost money.
I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has
amassed the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL
Polk is in the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming
longevity often reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim,
but I can't access the raw data without paying for it. I was hoping
there was an open source (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version,
available to the public. Without being to actually see the data, it is
hard to know how to treat the claims based on the data. I once wrote
Chevy and asked about their claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting
most reliable trucks. All they said was that it was based on RL Polk
registration data for a particualr period. Of course without actually
ahving access to the data, I can't see how the claim means anything.
Even worse, even if I had the raw registration data, I doubt it is
meaningful unless you also know how the trucks were actully used. I
always assumed that a higher percentage of Chevy trucks were purchased
by suburban users than was the case for Ford (i.e., more Fords were in
commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and therefore the Chevy trucks
were more liekly to be gently used, better cared for, and used less,
so therefore registration data byear alone would tend to suggest they
lasted longer... which might not really be true for vehicles used in
the same manner by similar populations of users.
I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"
sums up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration
data. I've always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data,
but that they have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer
builds perfect vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data,
sooner of later someone is going to demand to see the bad data as
well, and use a lawsuit to pry it out into the open. Better to make
unverifiable claims based on third party information that can be
checked but don't actually prove anything.
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.
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").
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
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.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:39:48 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
that different people buy different trucks for different purposes.
Everybody know that. Show me the data that most people wipe their ass
after taking a dump.
Never mind. I know that.
I never said people did not buy trucks for different purposes. Rather, Mr.
White claimed that certain types of people bought particular brands as "fun
trucks", and other brands as "work trucks". Example (paraphrasing): "Nobody
buys Tundras as work trucks." I've explained that I've never seen actual
data to back this up, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else, ever.
I'd like to be proven wrong, but not using anecdotes.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:07:09 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
of truck suspensions all day, every day.
Don't know if he sees many Tundras though. Some of that stuff is
But he has no "prejudice" among brands. Though he's a solid GM car
fan, he digs the Ford trucks. For professional reasons.
But what you'll get from all his experience will be an anecdote.
....and a very small sample.
It would be great if state motor vehicle departments would add a little
questionaire to their forms. "How will you use this truck?"
1) Family transportation
2) Towing a sport vehicle or boat
4) Building trades
That sorta thing. Just because they could do it.
It's fairly well known that Fords are a bit tougher in general.
The older ones in particular. The 1/2 tons even more particular,
as the Chevy half tons have a suspension that is not much
different than a large car. Where as the Fords used twin I
I've had plenty of both makes, and for work, I would say the
Ford hands down. Not to say the Chevy can't work, but they
won't take the brutal abuse the Fords will.
It may be anecdotal, but I've always preferred Chevy's for
street trucks, and Fords for work trucks.
I still have two Fords at this time. A 68 F-250, and a 74 F-100.
Both run great and I wouldn't be afraid to drive either one anywhere.
Both have six bangers, "300 in the 68, and a 240 in the 74",
both have manual's, and both are so simple and rugged that
you have to be really mean on a vehicle to kill one of them.
Wonder how many 40+ year old cars are still on the road,
and pretty much driven regularly... My 68 F-250 is one of them.
Course like any vehicle, upkeep has to be done.
I'm not saying the engine hasn't been rebuilt and the front end
is original.. I put a new long block in it in about 2002, and
totally rebuilt the front end, including king pins in about 2004.
But for a 41 year old truck, it runs good and is totally reliable
So easy to work on too. You can actually climb in under the
hood of mine to be next to the engine. :/
Parts changes are a breeze. I can rebuild Carter 1 barrels in less
than an hour.
The 68 with the granny gear 4 speed would probably rip
trees out of the ground with the low RPM torque the 300
has. I know it would drag my Corolla down the street kicking
and screaming the whole way if they were connected by chains.
But my favorite street trucks I've had were both Chevy's,
and both had 250 sixes.. A 66, and a 72. Both were step
sides. I had Blazer buckets and console in the 72. Good
street trucks.. The 66 was a step with the small back window.
It's older 250 had more guts than the semi smog version in the
The heaviest duty Chevy truck I had was a 78 3/4 ton. It was
fairly stout as far as Chevy's go. But the front end wasn't quite
as stout as the twin I beams on a older 3/4 ton Ford.
I can have an opinion or make assumptions about how trucks are used. I
don't think my assumptions or opinions are the same as "data." If you
disagree with my opinions, I get that. But you need to recognize the
difference between opinions and data. Maybe I need to include "I
think," or "I beleive," or "it seems like" in front of every
statement, but wouldn't that be tiresome. And of course, you need to
do the same. When I present something as a fact, I usually try to cite
a source. Otherwise you can assume my statemens represent an opinion,
a persoanl observation, or an assumption. The statements may indeed be
wrong, or silliy, or even stupid, but they are mine.
As for how trucks are used, I can only go by what I see in my little
corner(s) of the world. Mostly, where I farm, the overwhelming choice
for pickups are Ford SuperDuties with a few F150s. Then Chevy
Silverados (mostly HD), and then Dodges (again, mostly HD). I know one
farmer with a Frontier (like I used to have), but he also has an F250.
I also know one farmer with a Tundra (the old better style). He has an
F250 also. Most of the "new" Tundras I see are parked in town. They
are new, clean, and shiny with mostly empty beds. I realize this might
be too small a sample to be meaningful beyond my area, but it is the
best I have. Maybe where you live, all the contractors love Tundras.
Where I live it seems Tundras are mostly owned by people who have day
jobs in town and plenty of time to polish the truck. It seems unlikely
to me that Contractors overwhelmingly prefer Tundras anywhere given
the relatively poor Tundra sales. Even when the new Tundra sales were
"great" they had less than 10% of the big pickup market. So unless all
the Tundra are going to contractors, it seems unlikely they can be
that common as contractor trucks anywhere. The local electric co-op
did buy one this year. It will be interesting to see if they buy more
in the future. They buy based on sealed bids, so I guess the Toyota
dealer gave them the lowest price.
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.
On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:05:35 -0700, "Snuffy \"Hub Cap\" McKinney"
Well, my 20 year old Ranger is still on the road - and the original
paint is still shiny and virtually rust free at 343000km in the
central Ontario salt belt
Google "cayman green long ranger" to find pictures on ranger station.
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.