Toyota/Honda vs American

Did that. Doesn't support your claim.

Read what you posted. You were the one running down a competitive brand in a Toyota NG, not me. I don't run down any brand in any NG. I was simply dispensing some sound advice, it is ones option to take or not. ;)

mike hunt

hachiroku wrote:

"D.D. Palmer" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...

Well, around here (North Carolina) you see very few 20 year old Japanese cars. Rust, even in the relatively mild NC climate, was a real problem for Japanese cars of that era. My '75 280Z was already suffering from rust when I last saw it in the early '80's. My sisters '79 Accord literally rusted away in less than 7 years. The paint melted off my ex's early 80's Cressida. My '86 Mazda was little better. None of these cars could have been described as trouble free. The Datsun was a pain in the rear (clutch problems, fuel injection problems, rattles, rust, clunking rear end). The Cressida was even worse (A/C, Alternator, Automatic Transmission, crappy plastic, paint, etc.). The Mazda suffered from poor paint, overheating problems, alternator problems, etc. The Accord was the best of the lot, but rusted badly, and suffered from horrible wind noise and rode like crap. I laugh when ever people tell me how great Japanese cars are. With the exception of the Honda, more was spent on repairs for any one of those Japanese cars than any three US cars I have owned combined. In retrospect, they were all under powered, cramped, and over priced. I understand your point about Japanese cars holding there value better than US cars. From what I have seen this is mostly based on perception and not reality. In 1997 I bought a Ford Expedition, and at the same time my Sister bought a Honda Civic. In 147,000 miles of driving the Expedition I had to pay for one alternator, one coil pack, and two brake jobs. I traded it off in 2002. The paint was still perfect. It ran great and didn't use any oil between changes. In less than

100K miles my Sister has had to replace plug wires, a muffler, brakes once, and one timing belt. She has actually spent more on repairs and maintenance on this Honda than I did on my Expedition in 50% more miles. The paint is falling off the bumper, the rest of the paint is dull, interior bits are falling off, and the engine uses around a quart of oil between changes. Which was the better vehicle? I am sure she would say the Honda, since it used about half as much gas per mile as my Expedition. My ex has an MDX. I get great enjoyment hearing about how often it goes in the shop.

Ed

Honest to God, I don't know half the time whether to laugh or slap you!

But you DID tell the OP the Ford was a better buy, in a backhanded way. I like Toyotas MUCH better thatn Fords, but if I couldn't afford a Tacoma, I'd be looking for a Ranger. I have a nice Ranger right on the lot. You should come up and see it. If I remember correctly, you're only about 20 miles away....

Here's a hint: remember the German guy that had all the VW's right next door to the State Police?

I gave Ford a try when I purchased a 1997 F-150 4.6L from my mother-in-law when her husband died. I knew the history of the truck and how it had been maintained. It was three years old when I got it.

The rattles and shakes of that truck drove me crazy. Everytime I went over a bump something in the steering column moved. They told me it was a sloppy fitting of the pin that holds the collapsible column together. The rattle behind me where the seatbelt went into the interior paneling was insidious. I had torn all that skin apart trying to get at it. A crack developed along the outside of the driver's door about midway up. The rusting frame and undercar parts were a deadly cancer. The cable from the battery to the alternator fell off on a long trip when the screw rusted off. The 12 MPG was eating a hole in my wallet. However it did have decent power and hauling capability.

After about the third time I took it to the dealer he asked me what my other vehicle was. I told him a 1994 Toyota Camry. He said to me "This is not a Toyota. Get used to the rattles." I knew then I could never keep that truck and sold it next month after owning it one year.

So that's why Volvo builds tanks!

It's funny that you laugh. As I am eligible for a Ford fleet discount, I totally checked out an F150. It's nice, but it's a bit too big.

Then I DROVE them.

Hands down, the Toyota's better. The F150 is like driving a marshmallow.

The F150 would have cost me LESS! "LOL"

Barry

I also forgot to mention that F150 isn't even available with a stick, my preference, the Toyota's got a 6 speed.

I've owned several examples of both brands before, and as a self maintainer, the engineering differences are huge. I had primarily looked at the F150 for two reasons:

1.) I like the look of it. 2.) With the corporate fleet discount, I could have saved money.

The Toyota has enough room, payload, power, and towing capacity for me needs. Bigger is not always better.

Barry

Ticky-tacky interior, 15mpg, can't park it to save your life if you're in an urban area...

My sister bought one. She drives her ancient 1988 Park Avenue

90% of the time instead. I call that less than satisfied with her new truck.

Extend that to five years, or the typical car loan these days, and it's a whole other story.

OTOH, I will say that a Crown Vic is the best used deal out there. Thanks to the silly numbers in fleet service and killed and abused to death my police departments, the thing looses 50% of its value in three years, making it only beat by KIA and Hyundai for worst resale value.

Yet, a 3-5 year old one that wasn't beaten to death(private party) is a great deal. 6-8K for a nearly new car with a V8.

Just about, or at least they did. My 75 164E I had in college was a great car and it even had side impact protection - actual bars in the doors to defect incoming damage. Two decades before it became a "must have" for Ford and GM.

Thing was heavy, though - about 4000 lbs. I took out a couple of small brick walls with it parking over the years.(2-3 footers typical of parking lots - brakes weren't that long-lived with that much weight on them)

I agree that a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car (Panther platform car) can go similar to the Japanese vehicles in mileage and with similar durability. You're right that a 2-3 year old one is a very very good deal. And my brother's 2003 Town Car gets 18 MPG in the city on cheap gas. Maybe it's because it was designed in 1978 or so!

I find it a bit hard to understand that anyone would spend more money to buy a smaller truck that will be worth much less in three years, but like I always say it is your money spend it where you wish. ;)

mike hunt

B a r r y wrote:

That may be true until you want to haul or tow something of any consequence, I guess. As long as your satisfied, that is what counts. The Tacoma is a good truck. Thanks to GM it is made in the US, at least till 2006 when its production is scheduled to go to the new Toyota plant in Mexico. I hope you have luck with your truck in any event.

mike hunt

B a r r y wrote:

The same reason I pay more for a 12 oz. microbrew than a 16 oz. Miller.

It won't be. But then again, mine won't be for sale for at least 8-10 years.

Perhaps you should go back under your bridge?

Barry

Ya right.

mike hunt

badgolferman wrote:

Your premise is not correct. The CV and GM are made on the same chassis and the CV now even used the GM body. The T-Car is built on its own chassis but shares the engine and tranny. The newest chassis for each goes only back to the late nineties. There is today almost nothing still in common with the original Panther, or the original 83 Continental chassis from which the T-Car evolved, not even the engine, tranny or suspension.

mike hunt

"D.D. Palmer" wrote:

Ya right what? You think I'm making that up? It is a true experience I had with the Service Manager.

This is not correct. Side impact protection (i.e., beams) were required for all cars to be sold in the US cars that were built after Janruary 1, 1973. Many US built cars had them as early as 1969.

Ed