Sounds like paid-for spin from Toyota Motor to me. The sales figures
of the "old" Tundra are dismal, Nissan's Frontier even worse, and
Honda's Ridgeline are non-existant. When Toyota started slapping "1
Ton" stickers on the back of their minitrucks in the '90s and the
frames started breaking in half, they got a VERY bad reputation among
big truck buyers, and that's likely to hang around for quite awhile,
much like the Big 3 have been having big trouble trying to shake their
reputation for crappy cars. Like the heavy equipment market that they
tried to take over in the '90s, Japan Inc. will only get so much
incursion into the Big 3's truck market, for a variety of reasons.
Sloppy designs (a la Chevy) and bad reliability could change that over
Alas, Toyota seems to be the teflonฎ auto company...any criticism just
seems to slide right off. How many articles in the press do you see
where they sound like they were written by Toyota's marketing dept?
Agreed, their trucks are wimpy, but their cars are no great shakes
either and look at the adulation they receive in the media.
...and the "sheeple" fall for it every time. Although no one to my
knowledge has compiled the total receipts paid by Toyota USA to ad
agencies and the media, just a cursory glance at any TV outlet or
newspaper for years tells me that they've been outspending Ford, GM
and even DC probably by 3 to 1 or more, and have been giving lots of
"under-the-table" graft to writers of such manufacturer's rags as
"Motor Trend" and others.
The fact is Toyota's product a no better than the competition, but
huge sums of money spent on "spin" and massive ad campaigns make for
good sales. They're also quite adept at buying off pissed off buyers
whose trucks break in half or engines blow up. I know a guy who had
one of Toy's lousy "1 tons" do just that...break in half right behind
the cab. He put the thing on a flatbed and paraded all around Los
Angeles County, painted with "Toyota Quality...NOT!" and "Ohhh, what a
FEELING!" after he got jacked around by Toyota after they skilfully
outmaneuvered the state's "lemon law." After a week of that, Toyota
USA offered him any new Toyota vehicle of his choice or $25K cash, if
he'd just "go away." When's the last time you heard of any of the Big
3 doing that to buy off a wronged customer? Never.
Latest Toyota headache: exploding Lexus V8s in their "Tundra" trucks
when towing loads. One up here scattered engine parts all over the
road, similar to what Cadillac's first HT4100s did when new.
In 2001, Jesse Jackson did his signature deep-pockets corporate
"diversity and inclusion" blackmail routine to the tune of $7.8 billion
Perhaps that has had some "hidden hand" part in overly-favorable Toyota
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but
over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the
start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM cars
in a row, I went elsewhere.
I cannot speak to the Lucerne, but I got stuck with a '93 "Le
Slobber," easily one of the worst built cars I've ever owned, and I
dumped it post haste. Major gripes: crappy molded door panels whose
cheap fasteners would break off in normal use, the usual
self-destructing T60E transaxle, mediocre ride, handling, power and
economy, general "cheesy" feel to the car. This sled, with a Buick
231 V6, got worse mileage than my old fave, the M-body with a 318, AND
had about the same power...amazing, really, considering the Buick had
a far superior ECM package, FWD and MPFI, while the dear old Chrysler
5th Avenue has RWD, the usual "computer in the air cleaner" and a
Holley 2 bbl. carb.
I note Buick's really trying to "spin" the quality image with their
Lucerne ad campaign, but I see precious few of them on the road, and
the ones I do see are driven by oldsters who have probably been buying
Buicks since their '56 Roadmaster.
One reason Buick change the names of their cars was to attract new, younger
My first GM car was a '62 Corvair. I'd probably buy another if they still
made them. It was a Monza with comfy bucket seats and was fun to drive with
the larger sized tires I put on it. Got me home reliably, even in a
blizzard. I later had two, yes, two, Pontiac Tempest with the half a V-8
and flex shaft transaxle.
I had a VW that went anywhere with summer tires, but stopped solid when
deep snow piled up under it. That was always in my driveway.
The Corvair interested me, but early quality problems delayed me buying
one, then Nader killed it.
The Corvair was just another example of GM not fully developing a car
before putting it on the market. Perhaps they did the best they could,
but I'm not one to buy a car that is obviously under developed.
...as IF they didn't have enough time! Hell, the pancake 6 engine was
first developed in 1936! The problem with GM (even to this day) is a
very long, drawnout administrative process to get a new model to
market, with too much time being spent on real engineering and
testing. Yes, Nader killed the Corvair for its handling faults (which
were truly dangerous to the unskilled driver,) but the Corvair also
had other problems that GM simply refused to address once the line was
on the market.
You hit the nail on one of GM's big problems.
They put out new models with problems, then are far to slow to correct
those problems, if they ever do. Chrysler smokes GM in that regard.
GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be
a creative designer there.
Back in their heyday, whizbang stylist Harley Earle and wizzard
engineer "Boss" Kettering could crank out new designs and styles
whenever they wished. The Corvair "pancake" 6 was a Kettering idea,
but it only took GM 26 years to get it to market!! It took them from
1938 to 1949 to get their first OHV V8s, two separate, competing
projects to market...one by Bennett at Olds, one by Barr and Cole at
Cadillac...although WW II can be blamed for about four years of that
time lag. However, when GM wanted to move fast, they could. "Boss"
Kettering got his EMD 567-series 2 stroke diesels and his smaller GM
Diesel Division (later "Detroit Diesel" after the consent decree in
the '60s) engines to market within 18 months, again with a big push by
Al Sloan at the corporate offices. Both came to market in 1939.
In their consumer car lines, GM only took two years for them to get
the original HydraMatic to market in the '38 Olds. Reason: Sloan
picked the HydraMatic as a pet project to get through the GM central
committees for his then-favorite division, Oldsmobile. Originally,
the HydraMatic was going to go to Buick (where Sloan "grew up" in GM
after being a ball bearing salesman for New Departure), but they
refused, preferring instead to try to downsize the Allison bus
transmission into the Dynaflow...which again took 10 years to get to
market, in 1948! Little did they know that a young John DeLorean was
doing the same thing over at Packard in only 18 months, which resulted
in the Ultramatic, which copied the GM bus transmission right down to
the torque converter clutch (first application of this anywhere, NOT
the Torqueflite of '78) and the four element converter. DeLorean
rushed the Ultramatic into production with one fatal design
flaw...using a bushing with no seal to seal up the torque converter
output shaft, which made the Ultramatic one of the most unreliable
automatic transmissions ever sold. While many blame the demise of
Packard on their continued use of obsolete straight 8 engines while
Olds, Buick and Cadillac had modern, efficient OHV V8s, the Ultramatic
was the last nail in the coffin that sealed their fate. By the time
Packard ponied up their big V8s, it was far too late for them, and
they were gobbled up by the Studebaker family. Meanwhile, DeLorean
had abandoned Packard, and became part of the problem at GM.
Chrysler trivia: The original 318 "A" engine uses the exact same
lifters as the '55-'56 Packard V8s, along with several other piece
parts. Why? Chrysler bought the brand new Packard engine plant from
Studebaker in late '56, complete with tooling. Why reinvent the
wheel? Packard V8 fans routinely rebuild their engines with Chrysler
lifters, wrist pins, valve guides and several other indentical small
parts. Had Packard survived '56 and fixed the Ultramatic disaster,
the Packard V8 would've been a real contender for GM to deal with.
Don't forget the purposely ineffecient DynaFlush tranmission,
engineered to yield miserable gas mileage "to keep the oil companies
happy," as stated by Buick Division's then president. When you look
at the entire GM line for '55, Buick surely had the stodgiest styling
of them all, especially when compared to the edgier Pontiac and Olds
offerings. They knew who they were targeting....richer, upscale
conservative men like bankers who were too "humble" to go for a
Cadillac, a far better car mechanically.
I think the "fat cat" styling of the Buick had a large part in the
decision by the California Highway Patrol to go with their 'Century in
a Special body' in '55 over the more efficient and more powerful Olds
Super 88. That, and the CHP had experienced bad oil sludging and
stuck lifters in '54 with their previous Olds fleet, a problem cured
by switching to Texaco Havoline in mid-'54. But the cost to the
taxpayers was considerable, when you figure the Olds 88 got 20 MPG
average in road patrol service, while the Buick barely got 10! I'm
sure Standard Oil of California, who had the CHP fuel contract for
decades (and a named co-conspirator in several anti-trust actions with
GM), was most grateful for the Buicks.
After the Buicks, the CHP went with Dodge Division, and never went
back to GM again until 1967, when Ronnie RayGun's graft-filled
administration forced the CHP to buy a fleet of short-lived Olds
Delmonts and then some '69 Merc Marquis 428s. Both were disasters in
regular beat service and were quickly retired, replaced by more Dodges
in mid-year orders. Both GM and Ford, it should be noted, were also
huge Republican Party donors, while Chrysler was not. After an expos้
in the Sacramento Bee about RayGun's handlers "guiding" CHP fleet
purchasing to Ford and GM, the graft stopped, and there were no more
non-Chrysler patrol cars until the end of the M-bodies. The City of
Los Angeles wouldn't even invite bids from GM and Ford, and never
bought anything but Chrysler products for many years. The only thing
that upset that long-lived relationship was AMC, who had pleaded with
the LAPD to try their Matadors in LAPD beat service, where they were
quite successful. The city also went to AMC after the '74 oil embargo
for economy cars, and the fleet of LA City Hornets proved AMC could
build a relaible, economical car.
The last GM product I had was a long '71 Van.
Basically solid, but several components I won't go into detail on were
what I'd call a "Micky Mouse" design.
I left GM after that and oh my how long it took for GM to start it's
Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically
solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses.
-Valve rocker bearings failed many times before a permanent fix. I felt
like I was part of the GM test group.
-Leak in the body into the trunk.
-front brakes seriously affected by water, pulled car abruptly to either
side; dangerous to drive in wet weather.
I also had a '70 Datsun 510. It was well designed, but suffered from a
dealer who was just learning it and a body that rusted in rain faster
than bare steel.
Then switched to Chrysler in '79, much better design and quality than
GM. Improved significantly from '79 to '01- our new car yrs.
Also very responsive to THEIR problems, until DC took over.
Now Chrysler have become very evasive and expensive for service and
have given up building efficient easy to repair vehicles.
The Caliper may be a return to Chrysler's better past, but just a bit
too small for me.
Those side doors were legendary for failure, as were the window locks.
The '62 Chevy II wasn't a a very good car in comparison to the Falcon,
even though the Chevy II had a much larger but obsolete engine, the
235 "Blue Flame," usually saddled with PowerSlide. The Ford was a
weak performer, with the 170 being the largest available and the
equally bad two speed "FoMo" trans. Chrysler had the BEST idea, with
the A-cars, most of which would outlast any Falcon or Chevy II.
The "box," as we called the 510, was well loved by its owners, despite
the usual Japanese bad paint, bad interior and lousy amenities. What
turned people on to it was the Ajin Precision OHC 4, many of which
would turn 300K miles before having to have the head pulled.
I don't think "Dr. Z" knows what he's doing in the US market. Germans
are genetically programmed to overcomplicate and undersimplify
anything they build, although their technological abilities can be
astounding. German car owners are fastideous about maintenance, while
Americans are idiots who think a car is a "turn key" item that never
needs service, and get riled when someone suggests they need to change
their oil more than once every five years. It's not a good fit at
Chrysler needs to get rid of Daimler and return to what caused their
glory days of the '60s, when superior ruggedness, dependability and
serviceability carried the day. From what I read in here, DC is using
overly complicated and fragile digital control systems similar to the
awful ones used by VW-Audi and BMW, which need frequent
troubleshooting and repair/replacement. Ask any honest Mercedes
owner...those cars are shop queens, and have been for many years, and
it's always niggly LITTLE things going wrong. I'm seeing that a lot
with DC cars now. The troubles with TCMs alone have given DC cars a
black eye with buyers, while the transmissions themselves seem pretty
hardy overall. The "oil sludging" scare now, from what I've seen
lately, is simply a byproduct of the usual American car owners'
negligence, something for which Chrysler designed the K car to
withstand...somewhat. Despite being beat to death, they'd just keep
I disagree with regard to the 6 cyl Chev II I had vs the Falcon.
I had two friends with the Falcon, a much less solid car with a weak
engine. IMO the Falcon was a typical tin can from Ford.
The Chev II gave good fuel mileage, equal to the Falcon.
I pulled a 1,500 lb camping trailer coast to coast and in the western
mountains. About 15,000 miles of towing, in the 95,000 miles I had it.
Standard shift of course, had to double clutch to shift down to the non
syncro low gear on the very steep (logging road class) hills when towing.
I forgot one ugly design build problem I had. Rubber bushings in the
front suspension which wanted to remember where I was. I replaced them
with Teflon ones.
Also had to add a front sway bar as GM didn't install it in my6 cyl
What a huge difference these two simple changes made to steering.
So after I modified GM's partly completed car, it proved a good solid
The 170 was as big as they offered in the "Falcoon" in '62. Still, it
was better than the 144 of 1960, especially with the 2 speed FoMo. The
spring tower front ends of Falcons were notoriously weak, a problem
that carried through on the derivative Mustang and even the Maverick.
Standard transmission was the saving grace on your car. '62 Chevy IIs
with Powerglide were notoriously slow and fuel hungry. I believe you
could also order a Chevy II with overdrive, as you could the Falcon
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.