12th Oct 2010, 08:27
@12th Oct 2010, 00:07.
It's when I hear stories like yours I know some people are just trying to flood sites like this with questionable information. Because nothing you say is possible to verify. 'some neighbour says this, some friend of mine says that' and etc etc, and your story simply sounds to incredible to be truth for people like me that actually have owned several Toyota and Lexus vehicles.
Sludging; I've owned several 3.0 V6 equipped cars, both R300 and a Camry with no problems (these engines are supposed to be the 'worst' ones). Sludging is not 'well documented' on these engines, and all cases I've heard about can be linked to people not maintaining their cars properly and using the cheapest possible type of oil (and the wrong type of oil, because they can't be bothered to read the instruction manual where the right type of oil is specified) when doing oil changes.
And this accelerator deal with Toyota that was all over the media not many months ago. Suddenly all quiet? Why's that I may wonder? Maybe because NTHSA started to question most of the cases with sudden acceleration after some more thorough investigation. In most cases they've concluded that close to none could be linked to faulty accelerator design. So it's really weird that people like you continue to repeat false information.
Finally I'd have to say that the warranty repairs done to my Toyota/Lexus vehicles has been few, but in each cases they've been handled very professionally by my local dealer that I trust 100%. They even did a 50% coverage when the ECU on my daughters RAV4 failed, even if the car was bought second hand with a patchy service record, and had more than 120,000 miles on it.
Driving various GM products in the eighties and nineties, nothing was ever covered so long the warranty was expired, and even within warranty there could be problems. I once had to hire legal assistance for GM to take responsibility when I experienced stalling that later could be sourced to a defective tube in the fuel system. In the beginning they couldn't be bothered to fix the problem, so long the car started OK when it was in for 'fixing'. It didn't seem to matter that the car stopped a dozen times on the highway (it could be restarted after a minute or so). That's my GM customer experience.
12th Oct 2010, 10:10
Sure, drop any full frame car on end and yup, the frame will likely flex less than that of a unibody frame. But then again, in an imperfect world, accidents seldom if ever occur head-on. But getting back to the argument of which structure flexes less or more, in the event of an accident, you actually want the body of a car to absorb impact versus transferring all that energy to the driver. Most injuries in cars of old were caused from the impact of the crash and the effects of that impact on the human body. Volvo was the first car company to introduce a collapsible front frame. Car makers now have carefully engineered crumple zones on their unibody framed vehicles. Compare the safety ratings of cars today versus cars 20-30 years ago and today's cars are far safer on a huge scale.
If you get in a major accident, which would you prefer? Being in a car that might have a less forgiving frame, thus perhaps preserving more of the car, but in turn causing you serious injury, or one that absorbs that impact, perhaps causing more damage to the car but preserves your body? Besides, in either case a serious accident will likely total both cars anyway.
The argument about archaic cars with frames is not really pertinent to this discussion anyway, being that Ford is discontinuing the Crown Vic and Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car anyway.
As of now there are no longer any cars with frames, and this is for good reason anyway.
12th Oct 2010, 10:23
Both vehicles you mention are being discontinued. Neither Ford nor GM will have a legitimate competitor to the Tacoma or Frontier. That is unless you could call the Chevy Colorado "competition". Lastly, the Ranger is an ancient truck that in no way, shape or fashion can come close to comparing the the Tacoma. The Tacoma is about 300% better, more modern, more reliable and better-built than the Ranger and I can attest to this because my Brother had a Ranger and the thing was basically a joke.
I also have a friend who works for the local police department. The Crown Vics are definitely not reliable vehicles in his experience, because his is almost always in the shop.
12th Oct 2010, 13:40
I've been in a few crashes in body on frame Caprices and Crown Vic's vs. uni-trash up to 40 M.P.H. Always drove away smiling knowing that one more piece of uni-trash was gone off the road. Crown Victoria's and their sisters are still the safest cars on the road. Wreck your junk into one and you will quickly understand, if you can even walk. END OF DISCUSSION!
12th Oct 2010, 14:07
No... the fact that you might have walked away "smiling knowing another unitrash was gone" doesn't mean that body on frame cars are safer. It just means you got lucky. Besides - like as mentioned before, body on frame cars are a thing of the past as soon as Ford shuts down the Crown Vic assembly line. The reason? Unibody cars are safer. End of discussion...
12th Oct 2010, 15:38
Maybe if you'd learn to drive better (I've been in a few crashes... your line, not mine!) you wouldn't need a big full frame car, and you could opt for a more efficient better designed car.
It's pretty sad that you'd drive away from ANY accident smiling because you were somehow victorious over the other innocent driver. I, myself, drive to avoid accidents, not get in them to win some war against cars I don't like. What's it mean to you to have "one more piece of uni-trash gone off the road?" Are you really that upset that they now make more efficient vehicles? I guess some people would like to be ruled by the Middle East huh?
Do you really have this much dislike for others just for what they drive? No wonder this country is in such bad shape. People going on about such unimportant things with such passion and hatred.
12th Oct 2010, 16:01
I agree 100% with you. I've not had any major issues with any import I have owned, which includes 3 Toyotas. The recalls have all been blown out of proportion to the point of craziness. Domestic lovers just love to jump on anything they can find on the Internet, though, and take it as the word of God, even though they have absolutely no experience with the brands they are bashing.
The other one I love is the ratings quotes and how Toyota ranks so low. They had a ton of recalls, so how else are they going to rank right now? J.D. Powers would be out of business if they didn't turn on Toyota while they are in trouble. The reality of it is that Toyota's are just as good as they used to be, and a very very few of them have had any real problems. I still know of no one that has actually needed anything replaced on one for any recall.
I will continue to buy imports including Toyota because of one reason. They are cheaper to own! GM cars have literally cost me $1,000's in repairs, most of which occurred while I was still making payments on them... so yeah, in the first 5 years. GM cars are under-designed, they are less refined, cheaper inside and just plain uninspiring to own and drive. The only thing I would consider is maybe a Z06 Corvette. The Mustang GT blew the Camaro SS out of the water on the comparison test drives I did, so even the Camaro is a lame duck. Ford is a better brand in my experience, however, I did have to flatbed my 2009 Ford to the dealer with 8K miles on it. That has never happened to any import I have owned.
12th Oct 2010, 08:23
And the same is true for Nissan, GM, Ford, BMW, etc., etc. Do a web search and you can find negative stories on every car brand out there. I have heard horror stories about virtually every make and model of car there is. "Blame the customer" is hardly Toyota's creation! Not one of the auto companies is innocent of trying to rip people off so to pick one company, just because you don't like them, is kind of an unfair way to rate them.