Re: What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?

I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has amassed the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL Polk is in the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming longevity often reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim, but I can't access the raw data without paying for it. I was hoping there was an open source (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version, available to the public. Without being to actually see the data, it is hard to know how to treat the claims based on the data. I once wrote Chevy and asked about their claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting most reliable trucks. All they said was that it was based on RL Polk registration data for a particualr period. Of course without actually ahving access to the data, I can't see how the claim means anything. Even worse, even if I had the raw registration data, I doubt it is meaningful unless you also know how the trucks were actully used. I always assumed that a higher percentage of Chevy trucks were purchased by suburban users than was the case for Ford (i.e., more Fords were in commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and therefore the Chevy trucks were more liekly to be gently used, better cared for, and used less, so therefore registration data byear alone would tend to suggest they lasted longer... which might not really be true for vehicles used in the same manner by similar populations of users.

I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" sums up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration data. I've always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data, but that they have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer builds perfect vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data, sooner of later someone is going to demand to see the bad data as well, and use a lawsuit to pry it out into the open. Better to make unverifiable claims based on third party information that can be checked but don't actually prove anything.

I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.

Ed

Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles which answer your questions using that data.

While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").

Didn't see this before I posted about R. L. Polk. I don't feel as sure as you do about Toyota telling the "truth." If that "truth" has no real relevance to me, or deceives me in any way, it fails my test as "truth." As you said about the Chevy trucks, even registration raw data can't help. One of my sons does truck front ends all day. He knows more about trucks than any registration database. You might think that a guy that plows snow with a Chevy 3/4 ton knows about snow plowing with Chevy trucks. You'd probably be wrong if you catch him early on. My son could tell you that he has to fix them all the time because they just can't handle a plow. Sometimes accumulated "anecdotes" of real experience mean more than "real" statistics. A few honest high volume mechanics can provide more useful information about real costs and repairs than the cloudy info found in Consumers Reports. Not knocking CR, as it has it uses, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

--Vic

Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks. Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is best for their purpose. If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed once in a while, just about any will do.

--Vic

Uh, your words do not qualify as data. Thanks for playing.

Wasn't talking about data. Just your reference to "bullshit claims" that different people buy different trucks for different purposes. Hardly "bullshit." Everybody know that. Show me the data that most people wipe their ass after taking a dump. Never mind. I know that.

--Vic

I never said people did not buy trucks for different purposes. Rather, Mr. White claimed that certain types of people bought particular brands as "fun trucks", and other brands as "work trucks". Example (paraphrasing): "Nobody buys Tundras as work trucks." I've explained that I've never seen actual data to back this up, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else, ever.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but not using anecdotes.

Didn't see that. You sensitive about Tundra because it's a Toyota?

I'll try to remember to ask my kid about that. He works on all kinds of truck suspensions all day, every day. Don't know if he sees many Tundras though. Some of that stuff is regional. But he has no "prejudice" among brands. Though he's a solid GM car fan, he digs the Ford trucks. For professional reasons. But what you'll get from all his experience will be an anecdote.

--Vic

....and a very small sample.

It would be great if state motor vehicle departments would add a little questionaire to their forms. "How will you use this truck?"

That sorta thing. Just because they could do it.

See plenty of Tuindra "work" trucks. And lots of Ford "Toy" trucks

It's fairly well known that Fords are a bit tougher in general. The older ones in particular. The 1/2 tons even more particular, as the Chevy half tons have a suspension that is not much different than a large car. Where as the Fords used twin I beams. I've had plenty of both makes, and for work, I would say the Ford hands down. Not to say the Chevy can't work, but they won't take the brutal abuse the Fords will. It may be anecdotal, but I've always preferred Chevy's for street trucks, and Fords for work trucks.

I still have two Fords at this time. A 68 F-250, and a 74 F-100. Both run great and I wouldn't be afraid to drive either one anywhere. Both have six bangers, "300 in the 68, and a 240 in the 74", both have manual's, and both are so simple and rugged that you have to be really mean on a vehicle to kill one of them. Wonder how many 40+ year old cars are still on the road, and pretty much driven regularly... My 68 F-250 is one of them. Course like any vehicle, upkeep has to be done. I'm not saying the engine hasn't been rebuilt and the front end is original.. I put a new long block in it in about 2002, and totally rebuilt the front end, including king pins in about 2004. But for a 41 year old truck, it runs good and is totally reliable So easy to work on too. You can actually climb in under the hood of mine to be next to the engine. :/ Parts changes are a breeze. I can rebuild Carter 1 barrels in less than an hour. The 68 with the granny gear 4 speed would probably rip trees out of the ground with the low RPM torque the 300 has. I know it would drag my Corolla down the street kicking and screaming the whole way if they were connected by chains. :) But my favorite street trucks I've had were both Chevy's, and both had 250 sixes.. A 66, and a 72. Both were step sides. I had Blazer buckets and console in the 72. Good street trucks.. The 66 was a step with the small back window. It's older 250 had more guts than the semi smog version in the

I can have an opinion or make assumptions about how trucks are used. I don't think my assumptions or opinions are the same as "data." If you disagree with my opinions, I get that. But you need to recognize the difference between opinions and data. Maybe I need to include "I think," or "I beleive," or "it seems like" in front of every statement, but wouldn't that be tiresome. And of course, you need to do the same. When I present something as a fact, I usually try to cite a source. Otherwise you can assume my statemens represent an opinion, a persoanl observation, or an assumption. The statements may indeed be wrong, or silliy, or even stupid, but they are mine.

As for how trucks are used, I can only go by what I see in my little corner(s) of the world. Mostly, where I farm, the overwhelming choice for pickups are Ford SuperDuties with a few F150s. Then Chevy Silverados (mostly HD), and then Dodges (again, mostly HD). I know one farmer with a Frontier (like I used to have), but he also has an F250. I also know one farmer with a Tundra (the old better style). He has an F250 also. Most of the "new" Tundras I see are parked in town. They are new, clean, and shiny with mostly empty beds. I realize this might be too small a sample to be meaningful beyond my area, but it is the best I have. Maybe where you live, all the contractors love Tundras. Where I live it seems Tundras are mostly owned by people who have day jobs in town and plenty of time to polish the truck. It seems unlikely to me that Contractors overwhelmingly prefer Tundras anywhere given the relatively poor Tundra sales. Even when the new Tundra sales were "great" they had less than 10% of the big pickup market. So unless all the Tundra are going to contractors, it seems unlikely they can be that common as contractor trucks anywhere. The local electric co-op did buy one this year. It will be interesting to see if they buy more in the future. They buy based on sealed bids, so I guess the Toyota dealer gave them the lowest price.

Ed