GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter

Page 2 of 2  
You are mistaken in your belief.. You can educate yourself, search the NHTSA site. If you do, you will discover their two year investigation, of complaints of fires in the CV and the Interceptor, proved the Interceptor
far exceeds ANY certifies police car or OTHER car on the market, in the ability to take a hit in the rear without effecting the integrity of the fuel system or injury to passengers..
mike
wrote:

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

One thing about lawsuits: They are rarely based on reality. They are based on emotions. Facts almost always get lost in the way.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 4, 5:44 pm, "Wickeddoll"

What do you mean by certain cars? Different types of cars respond diffeently to different type of crashes. The car most comparable to the Crown Victoria was the old Chevrolet Caprice (no longer sold). NHTSA concluded that the Caprice and the CV had similar safety records.

Crown Victoria don't just "explode." Your making this claim is an attempt to paint Crown Victorias unfairly. Sometimes in a violent collision cars, including Toyotas, catch on fire. Becasue of the unique way in which the police use their vehicles, they are more likely to be involved in violent rear end collisions than average vehicles. You know - the whole idea of being parked on the shoulder of I-95 while SUVs roar by at 80 mph.
For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US (there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown Victorias as unusually unsafe.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: *snipping the repeated comments*
For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US (there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown Victorias as unusually unsafe.
Ed
I don't know how to make it more clear for you.
*ahem*
I am NOT saying the CVs are responsible for more deaths than any other car. I get that part, I do.
I AM saying, if it has a particular defect, that is especially dangerous for certain uses, such as cops, Ford should have been more forthcoming in accepting responsibility, *AND* for letting the other cops, as well as the public know that this car is more prone to detonate in certain situations.
I remember when this issue first came up, and it infuriated me that Ford kept saying it was the cops' fault, and that *nothing* was wrong with the car's design. They could have at least acknowledged that there were more factors than how the car was used.
Clearly there was - at least at that time.
I don't know about where you are, but I don't see nearly as many CVs being driven by cops anymore - but you'll probably try to tell me it's the unfair media attention, so we won't go into that, cuz I can't buy it.
Guess this is another thing we'll have to agree to disagree about.
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 4, 8:13 pm, "Wickeddoll"

So you think it would be better if the police used cars that were less safe, as long as they were less likely to catch fire? Are you saying you would be willing to trade a few more death by trauma in order to elimate a fire death?

There is nothing wring with the cars design. Ford tested the fuel system at far higher cash speeds than required to insure this. It seems that you want Ford to say there is something wrong when there is not. If you hit any vehicle hard enough, you can rupture a fuel tank, even one mounted under the rear seat.
Think about this -

SUVs on the highways. The damage caused when an SUV moving at high speed crahes into the rear of a parked patrol car is going to be far greater than a sedan moving at 55 or 60. So why not identify increasing speed limits or the increasing numbers of SUVs for police car fires? Chevrolet stopped selling the Caprice police cars after the early 90's, so during much of the late and middle 90s, right up until today the CV was the largest selling vechicle for highway patrol work. So, you have an increasing treat level becasue of more large vehicle traveling at higher speeds and only one target - the Ford CV. It is simple math to figure that when violent collisions happen to police vehicles, a CV will be almost certainly be involved. You have no frame of reference for claiming that CVs are defective. You essentially only have a sample of one for comparison.

I am in NC (aren't you as well)? NC tried Impalas, but is no longer buying them. This year they are buying a large number of Dodge Chargers (somewhere around 250) - mostly becase they are looking for higher speed cars, CV are relatively slow, especially when equipped with light bars. At least on the NC roads that I drive, I see as many CVs as ever. One recent trend is moving the blue lights from the roof to inside the vehicle along the top of the windshield and rear window. This makes the cars less obvious on the highway and probably helps with the speed. I am in Raleigh, and they still only have CV police cars.

You keep trying to make it seem as if CV are defective. They are not. NHTSA studied the heck out of this and came to that conclusion. The trail lawyer industry tied to make this claim but then that is how they make the big bucks. The press been more than willing to highlight cases where CV caught fire after a violent collision, but that is their nature. Death by fire is sensational, so it makes for good TV. None of this mean CVs are defective. I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I hate to see you fall prey to bad reporting.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ed White" "Wickeddoll"

So you think it would be better if the police used cars that were less safe, as long as they were less likely to catch fire? Are you saying you would be willing to trade a few more death by trauma in order to elimate a fire death?
*** No, now you're being facetious. I mean get a big car that's way less likely to react the same way to that type of collision. How about that? Nevermind, I'm not answering this thread again. It's a waste of time.

There is nothing wring with the cars design. Ford tested the fuel system at far higher cash speeds than required to insure this. It seems that you want Ford to say there is something wrong when there is not. If you hit any vehicle hard enough, you can rupture a fuel tank, even one mounted under the rear seat.
Think about this -
***Still not buying, simply because you have yet to show me how cops were killed/injured in the same way with a different vehicles. But that's okay.

SUVs on the highways. The damage caused when an SUV moving at high speed crahes into the rear of a parked patrol car is going to be far greater than a sedan moving at 55 or 60. So why not identify increasing speed limits or the increasing numbers of SUVs for police car fires? Chevrolet stopped selling the Caprice police cars after the early 90's, so during much of the late and middle 90s, right up until today the CV was the largest selling vechicle for highway patrol work. So, you have an increasing treat level becasue of more large vehicle traveling at higher speeds and only one target - the Ford CV. It is simple math to figure that when violent collisions happen to police vehicles, a CV will be almost certainly be involved. You have no frame of reference for claiming that CVs are defective. You essentially only have a sample of one for comparison.
***And you have not provided proof of CV *not* being more vulnerable in that situation than other cars in its class.

I am in NC (aren't you as well)? NC tried Impalas, but is no longer buying them. This year they are buying a large number of Dodge Chargers (somewhere around 250) - mostly becase they are looking for higher speed cars, CV are relatively slow, especially when equipped with light bars. At least on the NC roads that I drive, I see as many CVs as ever. One recent trend is moving the blue lights from the roof to inside the vehicle along the top of the windshield and rear window. This makes the cars less obvious on the highway and probably helps with the speed. I am in Raleigh, and they still only have CV police cars.
***Yes, in Fayetteville they have some, but they have some other vehicles I have yet to identify. Might be beta testing them. *shrug*

You keep trying to make it seem as if CV are defective. They are not. NHTSA studied the heck out of this and came to that conclusion. The trail lawyer industry tied to make this claim but then that is how they make the big bucks. The press been more than willing to highlight cases where CV caught fire after a violent collision, but that is their nature. Death by fire is sensational, so it makes for good TV. None of this mean CVs are defective. I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I hate to see you fall prey to bad reporting.
Ed
I hate to see you missing my point every time, but I give up.
Life's too short. See ya on another thread.
:-)
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 5, 6:23 pm, "Wickeddoll"

What point? That you have an axe to grind with Ford? It seems to me you just kept saying the same thing, with no supporting facts. No one claims that there haven't been CVs that caught fire in very severe collisions. But NHTSA studied this and concluded CV were not defective. Ford tests them at far higher speeds than required. It seems that you want me to prove that other cars are as likely to catch fire as a CV. There are not nearly enough cases invovling other vehciles (Impalas Chargers, etc.) to draw any statistical conclusions. Maybe there will be in 3 or 4 years. However, becasue the police now take extra precautions (stopping further off the road, angling cars away from the road, new rules requiring driver to avoid stopped police cars), it is likely that there will be fewer violent collisions that result in a fire. Despite what you seem to think, there are very few fires following a collisions. Before the CV became popular, the most popular police vehicle was the Chevrolet Caprice. It had a similar incidence of fire following a collision. Civilian CVs and Grand Marquis have a better safety record than the civilian versions of other cars commonly used in police work.
One more time here are my thoughts:
1) The CV gas tank is located in a safe place (at the front of the trunk above the rear axle) 2) Ford has conducted rear end collision test at higher speeds (75 mph) than any other manufacturer tests their vehicles 3) Even the early CVs (before the upgrades) had a similar incidence of fire following collision to the Chevrolet Caprice 4) NHTSA studied the CV and concluded there was not a defect 5) During the life of the CV as a police vehicle, the "threat level" has increased for police cars stopped along the side of roads - there are more large vehicles driving at higher speeds than in the past 6) Civilian CVs and Grand Marquis are among the safest cars sold in the US

Clearly you don't care about facts. I am surprised you didn't say something like - "You are free to choose to believe as you wish...."
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ed White" Wickeddoll"

Clearly you don't care about facts. I am surprised you didn't say something like - "You are free to choose to believe as you wish...."
Ed
Cheap shot. Thanks.
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 6, 12:22 pm, "Wickeddoll"

Honestly, I think you deserved it.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We can only assume you did not search the NHTSA site, if you continue to believe the Interceptor had a defect that led to fuel system fires since the NHTSA two year investigation proved otherwise.
Perhaps you are not seeing them but the fact is, currently nearly eight out of ten certified police pursuit vehicles sold in the US and Canada are Interceptors. ;)
mike
wrote:

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

The "unique" loss of your damned car exploding? Do tell - what car out there simply "explodes"? Perhaps you should study the incidents in which the Crown Vic has suffered gas tank intrusion and you just might see that those cases involved circumstances that would be considered extreme by any definition. If you want an automobile that is engineered to withstand anything that can possibly be encountered on the road, buy an Abrams tank.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" <...

Well, I tried.
I'm done with this pointless wheel-spinning, thanks.
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/Index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

Did I ever say you were fooled? I said "I don't think Toyota can fool all of the people all of the time."

I never said this.

Expressing my opinion is not "trolling."

Expressing an opinion does not mean I am bitter. Sometimes I agree with Mike Hunter, sometimes I don't. It does bother me when I see people trash the domestic brands - particularly people who haven't owned a domestic vehicle in decades. Between myself and my immediate family members we have owned Domestic, Japanese, English, and German Cars. I've personally owned 5 Japanese vehicles - 2 Nissans (280Z, Frontier), 1 Toyota (Cressida), 2 Mazdas (626, Courier). I am not wedded to the Domestic Car Industry, but I do feel that the opinion of the population has been conditioned to think Toyotas are somehow far better than other cars and I don't think this is true. If I strongly think false impression are being promulgated do you think I should just sit there and let it go?

It seems like you are dismissing the "anecdotal evidence" (your own "anecdotal evidence") since you are willing to buy another Subaru. Besides I said multiple times I would actually consider buying a Toyota. Sounds like we have the same sort of opinion.

I've never suggested that you should keep your mouth shut.

When did I say your opinions were not valid? Opinions are opinions, not facts. Third parties can agree with them or not. When possible I try to provide facts to support my opinions. I can't always do that. And sometimes I don't agree with facts provided by others.

I have never seen a Ford or GM or Dodge or Nissan or Mazda truck ad as deliberately deceptive as the current crop of Tundra ads. There is a clear attempt to deceive here. This is my opinion. You are certainly free to disagree. Certainly all manufacturers run ads that emphasize the "goodness" or their products and even cross over into gray areas to make a point. An example of a gray area ad is the current GMC Truck ad where they show a HD truck pulling a train. I am sure this really happened, but I am also sure that the truck would not be able to pull the train for long (especially if an uphill grade was involved). I don't think anyone seeing this ad thinks that GMC trucks are suitable locomotive replacements. On the other hand, the Toyota see-saw ad is a blatant attempt to deceive. They don't actually lie, and they cover themselves with type that is too small for me to read, but for the typical Joe watching the ad, they create the impression that a Tundra can tow a 10,000 lb trailer up a steep incline and then stop in on the opposite incline. In fact the trailer itself only weighed around 5,000 lbs and it had electric trailer brakes, so the trailer literally stopped itself.

You are missing the point. By allowing Toyota to dump small cars here, the US goverment eliminated the incentive for domestic manufacturers to build good small cars. Ford or GM or Chysler weren't going to pour millions and millions into developing small cars that were going to loose money.

You don't think Tundra front suspensions collapsing is a serious problem?
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/toyota_ball_joints.html
Toyota consistently down played the seriousness of this problem. NHTSA recieved numerous complaints about this problem, including reports of injuries and a death. At first Toyota said it wasn't a problem, then it wasn't their problem, then it was the Customer's problem, finally they recalled the vehicles "voluntarily" (after being threaten with a forced recall).
How about Tacomas with leaky fuel systems?
http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tacoma.htm
How about Tundra brake lines being cut by the exhaust system. I suppose that isn't problem either?
http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tundra.htm
There are many others, Camry sub frames, Celica fuel tanks, Camry air bags, Sienna fuel tanks, etc., etc., etc.

The number that died depends on who is counting. Toyota says none. I estimate (based on NHTSA compaints) that there have been 16 people injured and 1 killed as a result of Tundra ball joint failures (Tacomas and Sequoias are also involved but not counted).

This is another of the things that bug me. People who buy Toyota often acknowledge that they are more expensive, but then they claim that the cars are cheaper to own because either the depreciation is less or the cost of repairs and maintenance is less. In my opinion, depreciation is irrelevant unless you are trading cars every 2 or 3 years. A 12 year old Toyota with 200,000 miles isn't worth significantly more than a 12 year old Ford with 200,000 miles. As for repair costs, I can only go by the experiences of people that I am close to (family and close friends). The three most "repaired" vehicles owned by my family and friends in the last 20 years were 1) my sons 1995 Firebird ($1200 in total repairs, but the car had 200,000 miles and he burned out the clutch doing stupid things), 2) my SO's 1998 Plymouth Van ($700 for a burned valve, and it did get hauled away with a bad transmission after 9 years and 200,000 miles - still she got $500 for it), 3) my Sisters 1991 VW Passat ($1100 to replace a head damaged when the timing belt broke). My parents have owned nothing but Fords for 50 years. In the last 30 I doubt they spent $2000 on repairs for all of the Fords combined. So I am having a hard time seeing where spending $2,000 more for a Toyota to save at the most $1200 is reasonable.

OK, see my response to #8. All three of the biggest repair bills I quoted can be attributed to abuse (for the Firebird, bad teenage driver, for the van poor routine maintenance and towing a 21 foot sail boat down I-95, for the Passat, poor maintenance). Toyotas aren't immune to abuse or poor maintenance. When they fail for these reasons, the repair costs are greater (in my opinion).

Actually four bad dealers. My SO who only wanted a Toyota finally had to go to a dealer 50 miles away to get an acceptable deal. If I had gone to that dealer, I might have bought a Tacoma instead of a Frontier. However after dealing with the closer Toyota dealers I was so disgusted that I just gave up on finding a Tacoma. One of the problems in the Southeast is that all the Toyota dealers are closely related through the Southeast Toyota Distributor. Sometimes it seems to me that they collude, or are "managed" by the distributor in such a way as to reduce price competition. Of course this isn't just a Toyota problem any more. So many of the formerly independent dealers are now parts of larger groups, price competition is a lot less than in the past.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First, let me say, this is the most reasonable response I've ever seen from you. It's more cogent, and less of a rant. Way more effective, IMO.
Read on...

Seems the same to me- you're saying I'm somehow being fooled.

You said we won't even consider another type of make, which is only true of a few fans I've see on various boards. I never say never, about most things, cars/trucks included. At least try not to lump us all into the "Toyotas are perfect" category. It's simply not true.

It is when you dismiss the opinions of others. At least that's how many of your posts *seem* You do appear to be a very reasonable guy, way moreso than you-know-who, which is why I keep conversing with you (not that my conversing with someone is a special treat :))

No, but please at least acknowledge what some of the others have told you. It so happens that I think you're telling the truth about many things, especially with trucks, but without any evidence, you are not likely to convince anyone of the validity of your counterpoints. That's all I'm saying. When someone posts data on a particular vehicle, you often don't even say, "OK, that's something to consider" or something like that. All I see is Toyota-harping.

No, I didn't give up on Subarus, because I found out later that particular one (The early 90s Loyale) was a particular POS, but other Subarus were pretty good. So again, I didn't just go by my experience with *one* Subaru.

Mea culpa - I misread this line:

You invalidate it every time you lump us all into the Toyota-worshipping category.

Well, you already know what I think about trucks in general, so I won't rehash, but I still don't believe Toyota has been anymore deceptive than most other advertising. I put very little stock in as, myself. Doing your own research on an expensive item is the key. All I consider with ads are the bells and whistles. Nothing more.

And that's Toyota's fault? Competition is competition. I have plenty of sympathy for US autoworkers, I swear, but it just sounds like D3 got hoisted on its own petard. Toyota saw a market, and exploited it. (yes, I said "exploited"). Just seems like good business to me.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't doubt your statistics, especially on trucks. My point is that I've always been very happy with Toyota small cars. Truck data is irrelevent to me, but I think you should absolutely speak up about it.

I believe what you've said, but have a very hard time believing all of the same things would happen to a Toyota (small one, anyway). I've just not seen the myriad problems you claim are common to all cars.

True, you have to be nice to the Toyota for it to be nice to you, but even my abusive son hasn't managed to do serious harm. Oh wait, he got sand in my bearings ($400), but I made him pay that. :-)

If you're talking about the ones in the Phoenix area, Larry Miller, I TOTALLY AGREE.
They suck big-time. They nearly trashed my Corolla FX 16 before I took it elsewhere, and their attitude is downright nasty.
Too bad you had to deal with them, if that's what you mean.
Natalie

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.