8th Feb 2007, 18:53
Very few people buy the Camry with a 6 cylinder. Which means more sadly underpowered cars getting in my way on the freeway. And your second comment is flat out not true! Have you even SEEN the new Escalade or Denali? Name ONE Toyota SUV that has interior quality to match. Toyota's are for economy buyers, who want good gas mileage and not much power (or just sheeple who fall for ad hype). Personally I like interesting cars that have power and class and that's why I buy American.
BTW, as far as I know, we haven't even had the Ford Focus for 10 years have we?
8th Feb 2007, 19:36
18:44 my dad had a "lumbering" Buick GS 455...I drove a "lumbering" Buick Turbo Grand National. Maybe when I'm 80 I'll drive a Camry as these Buicks are not for the faint of heart.
8th Feb 2007, 21:32
Yeah, yeah, Buick made two good cars 40 years ago, good for them. Grand Nationals were nice. And I'm not commenting on Buicks; I'm commenting on the people here that ARE talking about Buicks. Let's end it right here, okay? For the THIRD time: this is a Toyota site, for people smart enough to buy a Toyota and NOT a Buick. I'm done mentioning the word Buick here, so unless you guys are so insecure about owning one that you have to tell everyone everywhere how good you seem to think it is, then let's discuss Toyota's. Would that be alright, considering that this is a Toyota thread? And please, if you haven't ACTUALLY owned or driven a Camry, then refrain from making stupid, biased comments about something you know nothing about. But, I'm sure the jealousy will continue, and people will continue to try and discredit the best auto maker in the country with more useless and inaccurate data.
8th Feb 2007, 21:38
22:53, you want your proof? how about my close friends mother? and all the others on the news! and how can I PROVE that it aired on the news, since it is constantly changing? I can't exactly go back in time and record the news broadcast or get the scripts...
That's exactly what I'm talking about, the RATINGS. that's exactly what the news addressed. the RATINGS and how they were NOT ACCURATE, via real world experiences and reports.
8th Feb 2007, 21:48
I'm sorry, but I have to mention "Buick" one last time because I missed something really funny a few minutes ago: you tinted the windows and put rims on a Buick PARK AVENUE?!? Are you @#%$*&& kidding? Tell me that you actually drive a Camry, and you made that comment just to get us all laughing. Please.
8th Feb 2007, 22:31
Let's face it folks. You're not buying a Camry to race a Corvette. You're buying it for a car that's known for its reliability and resale value. Sure, you can find a Camry owner that's had trouble from day one. No car company is immune from this. I just find that the US car companies do not make a better product.
I have a 97 V-6 Camry with 188k. At about 175k things have started to wear out, and we may keep it till it hits the 200k. It has served our family well, and we would buy another one. Even at 188k, the vehicle could be sold privately for 3k (fair condition). People can moan all you want how Toyota's are overrated and such. I'll still buy a Japanese vehicle over a Big 3 built any day of the week. They have burned me too many times, and I'm sick of spending my hard earned dollars on repairs that I should not have to do. Example; tranny at 75k, peeling paint, blah, blah, blah.
8th Feb 2007, 23:22
Comparing Buicks to Camrys is sort of like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo. The Buick is a far more luxurious, much more solidly built car that offers more performance, better fuel mileage and a TREMENDOUSLY SAFER design (check the statistics, HALF as likely to kill you as a Camry). In addition, the very sporty and youth-oriented LaCrosse is thousands cheaper than a far less well built V-6 Camry. Every reputable source on the planet rates Buick WAY above the mediocre Camry in both reliability and customer satisfaction. The Camry is a good choice for elderly people who don't care about performance or drive enough to worry about repair costs (my 75-year-old aunt has one), but for people wanting more than basic transportation the Buick is hard to beat at the price. Our Buick has 270,000 miles on it. I never heard of any Camry going that long unless most of the mechanicals were replaced about 3 times.
9th Feb 2007, 05:14
OK. The chances that you'll have problems with a GM product is much higher than a Toyota. Comparing a Toyota to a Yugo...Funny
Believe what you want. *click*
9th Feb 2007, 08:28
21:32...try 20 years ago Grand National. You cannot have it both ways...comment negatively on a Buick when someone contradicts then say Toyota only. Toyotas are boring... maybe 2009 when the new concept Supra replacement hits mid thirties price range. Until then there's nothing fun to drive in my opinion. Just basic boring transportation from Toyota. We deserve better and I will look at that new model if it becomes avail.
9th Feb 2007, 09:28
Uhhh...so just when is the domestic poster supposed to start having "more problems with a domestic than a Camry" with his 270,000 mile Buick?? At a MILLION miles???
9th Feb 2007, 09:35
<<BTW, as far as I know, we haven't even had the Ford Focus for 10 years have we?>.
The Ford Focus we have in America debuted in Europe in 1997, and then in America three years later. Not even Mercedes or BMW (makers previously known for long product cycles) kept a car in production that long.
9th Feb 2007, 09:37
What are you talking about? The MAJORITY of car buyers want boring cars. Why do you think Toyota sells 400K Camrys a year?
I am not in that category, but then I'm not the average car buyer. But to say "we deserve better" means you do not understand how cars are sold.
9th Feb 2007, 13:30
The 270,000 is probably grossly exaggerated, and if it isn't then it's a rarity for any car that's not an import. Toyota's do this every day. Anyone that wants to keep a car for that long and buys a Toyota can do so 99% of the time. With Big 3 stuff, you might get 170,000, maybe a little more if it's a fleet vehicle and piles on a lot of miles in a short time frame. I've seen a lot of Dodge's get into the 200,000 range, but not so with a Ford or Chevy, they don't last that long MOST of the time. No need for someone else to write in and tell us how their Buick has 600,000 miles on the original tires or something else ridiculous. If you're not severely distorting the facts, then your vehicle is a lucky exception to the rule.
9th Feb 2007, 14:19
Uhhh... so just why are the Big Three in such financial trouble - because all their cars are so flawless?
These one-off examples are just typical of the way American manufacturers have always been. A car built on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday has a better chance of being reliable than one built on a weekend, Monday or Friday. But the MAJORITY of the cars are bad.
Want proof? Here in California cars don't rust, so theoretically you would see MORE old domestics running around than anything else. Yet the opposite is true, and I see 30 and 40 year old imports still buzzing by.
Now how to do you explain this, especially given California is by far THE largest car market in the country?
I mean, why would any Californian even consider an import if the domestic makers have this long, long history of building extreme quality cars that last forever?
Oh, and before you start saying how unAmerican Californians are, remember that the largest seller of communist goods in the world is Arkansas-based Wal-Mart.