Re: Understanding Americans better than Detroit does

Most popular, maybe, I would hardly call it "prestigious."

Oh come on! That's HARDLY original to Toyodor. Consider the Ford Taurus and Plymouth Valiant. Nothing special about them, except practicality and low cost of ownership with (at the time) innovative styling- and in their eras they were each the top selling car.

The difference is that Plymouth also had the Roadrunner and Barracuda, and Ford also had the Mustang for those who wanted something a little more exciting. What's Toy got? Camrys. Nothing but Camrys. Toasters on wheels. Ugh. They *had* quite a car in the twin-turbo Supra there for a few years, but I guess it was a little too much for them.

You have a point, but it seems that you are in a minority of people who feel that way. Most of us want something practical that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and the fact is that Toyota gets it done and more people like it than don't. There really isn't any point in arguing about it. Mustangs are cool but I wouldn't spend money on one. I just need to get down the road, and the less stuff that can break, the better.

Oh, I agree. I have *no* problem with not being a part of the herd. Otherwise I probably wouldn't drive a 1966 big-block car every day :-)

Now *there* we agree... which is again part of why I drive a '66 big-block. But that philosophy flies straight in the face of the success of the Lexus sub-brand. Or Mercedes. Apparently, HUGE numbers of people want electric butt-scratchers that will leave the whole car inoperative if they fail. Go figure.

You'd never find a modern engine that will out-live a slant-6 or 318, so that's not even a real "improvement."

Nope, me either. I do admit that its nice when I get a rental car with the latest gadgets, but the entertainment wears off in a day or so and I'm really glad when I fly home and pick up the '66 at the covered parking lot...

I can't explain that one. I wouldn't want a Lexus. My favorite car was the 1980 Subaru. It had wheels, headlights, and a radio. Some things on cars have improved since then. I like electronic fuel injection and long-lived engines, but I don't like all the complicated junk they put with it.

in re: ".......Toyota became America's most prestigious automaker......"

"prestigious"?????? I can't agree. In fact, American automakers killed the love affair with cars by producing nothing but boring, look-alike cars, year after year. Cars stopped being objects of lust, individual makes no longer project an image, and are now just appliances. When you buy an appliance all you care about is the thing doing what it's supposed to do with a minimum of breakdowns and that means Honda or Toyota.

Case in point: youngers, believe it or not, you used to be able to select the color of the interior of your new car!!!!!! Even cheap models were available with tan, green, blue, red, black interiors.....a "luxury car" would have literally dozens of choices of materials, styles, colors, configurations. Then - despite all that consumer research - the automakers decided that they could save money by only offering one interior, typically gray. Of course, not all exterior colors go with gray so they limit the number of exterior colors too. Case in point: by the time I bought my '96 LHS I had a choice of gray, black or tan interiors.......not many, but a choice. A few years ago I decided I wanted a Lincoln LS.......for $46,000 they offer exactly 1 interior.....and about 10 shades of gray for the outside. I may have no choice but to buy something boring, but I don't have to pay $46,000 for it!

Actually, I think Chrysler started it with the Neon that came with that one color of kiddie-piddle upholstery with blotches of green, yellow and blue in it so it would go with any exterior. And....the first promo material for the PT Cruiser showed the choice of greige or tan leather interiors......but by the time it was introduced they had done away with even that choice.

(BTW, ended-up with a Mustang because I could have the choice or gray, black, tan or red interior.......wow, a RED interior = what a concept!) The next car will undoubtedly be a Toyota or Hyundai........if I've got to be bored, I might as well get it cheap....but I wouldn't call that "prestige".

The slant 6 and 318 were quite durable, but I have the general impression that modern car engines are more trouble free on average than car engines of 30 or 40 years ago. But they seem to cost more to fix when they do break....

Going back to the idea from the original post, regarding whether a car company is in touch with "what people really want", some do a better job than others. I like the Corolla, and I like a basic model Dodge minivan, although they have more gadgets, widgets and gizmos on them every year. I would just like to see a car company make a car that gets very good mileage and doesn't have glaring mechanical weaknesses. The claim was that Toyota knows that the average person just wants an economical commutermobile. My opinion is that they have a reputation for building such a car in the past, but they get further and further from this most worthy cause with each model year.

I'd keep it quiet if I drove a 60s polluting guzzler.

Those toasters on wheels are obviously what most people want. Just good solid reliable transportation, not race cars which don't belong on the roads anyway.

I don't know - lately I've been hearing news reports that the battery manufacturing plant in Canada for some of the "planet friendly" electric vehicles has been doing more harm to the environment per vehicle than Steve's guzzler will have ever done over its lifetime. But as we know, with liberals it's all about "feeling good" and has nothing to do with actually solving problems and unintended consequences. Hollywood rents a bunch for a big public event and then goes back to driving their SUV's when it's over. Remember - it's all about feeling good.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Well, my wife and I own and drive examples of both. My '66 has been converted to electronic ignition, so it no longer needs the points adjusted every 12,000 miles and can run 20k or more miles on a set of spark plugs and wires, just like my wife's computer-controled EFI/multi-coil engine. Its still carbureted, so I do find myself adjusting the choke every 2-3 years. Other than that... it DOESN'T need a timing belt every 90k miles like hers. Nor does it require $20/gallon transmission fluid like hers. The '66's first engine ran 270,000 miles and was still running well when I decided to rebuild it (it had started burning a bit of oil). Wife's currently has 238,000 and while it doesn't burn as much oil as the '66 did at the same mileage, it seems to have lost a noticeable bit of power despite all the sensors and controls being in good order. Still quick enough that I'm not going to tear it down just yet (probably not ever, because the car around the engine isn't worth 1/10th of what the '66 is to me), but I can't say that its

I will reiterate my statement that Toyota is well on its way to being the GM of the 21st century. And that means in ALL the bad ways as well as simply being huge. In recent years they've had a huge rash of recalls, more mechanical problems (eg. burned-up engines in Camrys and failing front-end components on Tundras) and made some pretty stupid-seeming decisions (eg. building a new plant to build a brand new behemoth pickup truck that won't appeal to farmers, ranchers, or fleet owners at the very moment when gas prices are spiking and non-work buyers of behemoth pickup trucks are re-thinking that idea). They've also seemingly lost the "we'll make it right" dealer network that USED to set them somewhat apart from other makes.

My car, my choice. And I haven't had a car payment since my wife's car was paid off 12 years ago. That'll buy me a WHOLE LOT of premium gas for my high-compression tire-melter.

I think you're just jealous.

I'm not suggesting a battery car, there are many modern less polluting efficient gasoline cars built since the early 90s. It's time to get the old polluting junk off the roads.

Not at all, I just hate the smell of old polluting "should be junked" cars.

There are. I own one, and my wife drives it. But ***I*** choose what car I'm going to own and drive. Not you. Just like I don't pick where you live.

In your very uninformed OPINION.

For one thing, if you removed every car made *AFTER* 1995 from the road and left ONLY the "old polluting junk" on the road, the air would get cleaner than it would if you eliminated all pre-95 cars from the fleet. Its the sheer volume of cars and miles travelled (not to mention gross pollution from BUILDING a new car for conspicuous consumption every 3 years) that adds up. And most of the fleet is new cars, old cars like mine are a *tiny* fraction of the total. My "old polluter" gets driven about 15 miles per day. 90% of the people that share the road with me are driving 40+ miles per day. For another thing, I have NOT been responsible for all the incidental pollution that results from manufacturing a new car since 1993 when we bought my wife's car. That alone amounts to more pollution than has come out of the tailpipes of my '66 for the past 41 years. Not to mention strip mining for the raw materials.

Better start living up to your handle there, Mr. "Facts."

Bingo! If you're a liberal, you don't factor *all* the costs in - only the ones that you want to acknowledge.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Your oldie polluter produces at least 200 times the pollution of a 90s+ car. When you pollute the air unnecessarily all of us are concerned and have a right to discuss the subject.

It depends on what you define as pollution. Assuming similar fuel mileage, you have the same quantity of air and fuel going in. By the law of the conservation of mass, the same molecules come out the tail pipe. They may be re-arranged into different compounds, but guess what

- eventually they all break down. Matter is neither created nor destroyed in the internal combustion engine. So where does the ridiculous "200 times" come from?

No. Whether we should be or not, not all of us *are* concerned. You're way overstating your case with both claims made in that post. If you have valid arguments, they should stand on their own without having to compensate by overstating. Weakens credibility of any argument, valid or not, that you might otherwise have.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Ah, so what you mean by "just facts" is "it's a fact that I have a bunch of opinions based solely on personal prejudice", not "my opinions are based on fact".