More Common Sense from Toyota

At least you have a readily available common spare part till you can get a replacement ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter
Loading thread data ...

You have that right, Toyota parts do cost a small fortune. ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

How about drive less? There are plenty of high mileage cars and trucks available on the market today. Not enough buyers chose to buy them, however, since none is a top seller in the US. It is common in the US for there to be more than one car in a household. Many that buy the safer vehicles they need for their family also have a higher mileage vehicle to use when needed.

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I personally don't like many Cadillac's. The STS's are an exception.

I don't know about that. A cousin of mine used to own an '89 (or so) Caddy. He loved the car, and said it drove and handled better then his current '04 Jimmy and '05 Grand Prix.

I will agree that some people buy a Cadillac only because it's a Cadillac, but I disagree with you saying that the quality and luxury are no longer present.

That I can also agree with. Though, now-a-days (and with the Internet's help), I think more and more people are researching there purchases before they buy them. It's just a question of are they getting the right advise or not. When it comes to cars built now-a-days, it is my opinion that they are mostly alike in quality. The main choices are the type of car (SUV, 2-door sports car, van, family-mobile), and the way it looks. Like I have said before, some people will gawk at the look of a $200,000 Ferrari, yet love a Pinto.

Reply to
80 Knight

I was actually agreeing with you but you still manage to pick at something Oh, well, noting lost.

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

Tommy Kendall seems to be impressed with the Caddillac CTS. He drives a lot of cars and says it's one of his favourites. I believe the Caddillac is one of GM's platforms for engineering. Just my opinion though.

Blair

Reply to
Blair Chesterton

I dont personally have much knowledge of the present Cadillac line. I have heard that the CTS is not much to brag about, depending on engine and drivetrain, IIRC. I briefly researched the line, read customer reviews, found a lot of dissatisfaction. Decided this whip was not for me.

Maybe I should have said that older Cadillacs were perceived as being very luxurious and high quality, and were largely purchased by people with money. Poorboys like me had to drive Fords and Chevrolets.

As a young man, I ogled the Mercedes Benz 300SLR and the Ferraris. Now I dont want the problems associated with ownership of a very expensive and perhaps temperamental car.

Reply to
<HLS

Just a note - My '88 Dodge Shadow was not all that far removed from the car that saved Chrysler, the K car. Talk about parts standardization! One transmission for each mode (manual/auto), one alternator, much of the braking system, etc was the same. In reading the repair manuals that I got for it, I noticed that every FWD car had the same wheel track (width) as the motor/trans was the same. And the brakes, it seemed like they made one type of disk brakes - and if it stopped a minivan or new yorker, it would certainly stop a Shadow (it had comparatively huge brakes for the size of the car on the front). Of couse they got away from the cookie cutter approach in time but no doubt it saved them a ton of money to be able to bolt cars together and not have to stock a separate part for a lower volume car.

Think about the engine mess GM has compared to Honda or Nissan, Toyota. How many engines does GM have? The eco-tech (which seems to be a good one BTW), the import V6 motor in the CTS, the 3.5 (was a

3.4), the 3.6, the 3.9, the various v8's, etc. I really happen to like the shortstar v6 in my '00 intrigue GLS, it has tons of torque, good wide powerband and excellent trans, runs smoothly and quietly, etc. But after developing it, they figured it cost too much to produce. Wouldn't it be cool to see that motor as a base for the small truck Colorado, the GrandPrix, the Equinox, etc. You could put a turbo on it for high-performance applications. Maybe the new 3.6 will fill this need, but hate to see GM with so many brands that they need to keep making a low-class motor for Chevy, a better one for Buick, etc. Are there different engines for Lexus/Toyota or Nissan/ Infinity? Basically, not on the low end, no they are warmed over Camry's and such. The engine in the minivan is also in the Camry, also in the small pickup (to some extent) etc. Why do all the engineering to re-invent the wheel?
Reply to
scott

Because the bean counters at GM are all nimrods. Like you said, they ought to cut way down on the engine selection across their make and model lineup. Most people I know (relatives or friends) don't give a flying flip about what engine they have under the hood and couldn't tell you the size of their engine if their life depended on it (most barely even know how many cylinders their engines have). I happen to be interested in such matters, but most people aren't. And if you focus on putting the best engines that your co. offers into the cars, instead of having 12 different engines, then even car nuts will dig the motors that are in your cars.

Chrysler, as you mentioned, clawed out of bankruptcy to success/profitability due to their few chassis/engine offerings. From 1980 until like the early 90's, the only engines they had were the 2.2 and its derivations, 2.5, 2.2 Turbo, 2.5 Turbo for the smaller to midsized cars. Then the larger cars/trucks/vans got the slant 6, 318ci V8, 360 or 440. That's only like 4 engine families. Smart. Plus all of those were great engines.

Reply to
Grappletech

I don't know much about Cadillac's either. They have never been my type of car.

I always drive the poorman's Cadillac. Pontiac's.

Mercedes' have never been my favorites. I do like a couple Ferraris', but I am a mostly domestic man.

Reply to
80 Knight

I owned a Mercedes 300D for a couple of years. It was not my choice, but a company car deal (hand me down from the president) and I did not have to pay for repairs. It was the most expensive car for service and parts and the dealer was, IMO, shafting al of the owners that took cars in to them. As a generalization, many Mercedes owners are older professional people that can afford them, but have little mechanical skills or interest. They were good at writing checks though and were getting hosed, IMO.

Three service calls they tried to greatly overcharge me with were: Problem 1: electric fan did not work. They replaced both fan and sensor When they could not show me the old fan and that it did not work, I got credit.

Problem 2 dead batter, will not start Replaced both alternator and battery. When they could not show me the alternator and how it was tested, the gave me a credit for it

Problem 3 cruise control dropped out Replaced a $700 control and it still dropped out. After I drew a diagram (I had a shop manual) of how the cruise control worked and why this part was not the problem, they replaced the $35 brake switch and credited the $700 control board.

It was a good handling car, but very high priced and expensive to own. When I changed jobs, a sale sign went on it the next day and I got a good price even with 185,000 miles. I'd never own one as my personal car unless I was that check writing professional making $400k a year.

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

GM is working fast to correct this issue.

Reply to
iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.