18th Nov 2006, 09:12
You SHOULDN'T have any repairs with vehicles that have only 50 or 60 thousand miles on them. Look at the Mustang, first one to get over 100,000 miles without completely falling apart, and you have several hundred dollars in repairs, and it would have continued to get geometrically worse. The smartest thing you could have done was exactly what you did: unload those pieces of crap before they actually had to attempt to get down the road with any kind of high mileage on them. Thanks for helping me prove my point. You Big 3 owners think that a Toyota driver is going to be impressed by a car that probably got pampered for 60,000 miles and hasn't needed repairs? Let me know how it's doing when it has another 140,000 on it. Of course, it will probably have been melted down into soup cans by then.
18th Nov 2006, 12:45
Just when I finally get over laughing at the "I saw Fords at a Ford dealership" comment I run across one just as funny (maybe more so) on the Corolla site. A commenter says the engine blew up in his Corolla at 34,000 miles (not really that uncommon, it happened to one of our neighbors) but that he WOULD BUY ANOTHER ONE!!! Then he adds, "but only from a TOYOTA DEALERSHIP"!! (Gee, as to opposed to what? Having the car fairy leave it under his pillow?? It really amazes me how powerful the Japanese car myth is. A Toyota owner has an engine blow up at 34,000 miles and he'll BUY ANOTHER ONE, then if the tail light bulb burns out on a Ford or GM at 300,000 miles, it is labeled "crappy American garbage". I bet psychologists have a bellyfull of laughs reading these comments.
18th Nov 2006, 18:28
I have yet to hear read one domestic owner have the total lack of refinement in their descriptions as you definitely possess. They are just factual and trying to be helpful. You definitely have a real chip on your shoulder. There are many individuals that you are alienating on here. Its possible that someone might be borderline acquiring a Toyota vs. a domestic. You lack of benefit of the doubt may come to haunt you one day if it hasn't already. Perhaps if you toned it down completely you would have less arrows directed at you. Your comments are a complete put down. If your mother or a relative heaven forbid drives a domestic do you talk down to them with a complete lack of respect? Sad. Drive your old truck around its yours... we are doing fine and will continue.
18th Nov 2006, 20:58
We put 230,000+ miles on our Dodge with less than $500 in total repairs. That is NO WAY "increasing exponentially" after 60,000 miles. When we sold the Dodge it still did not use oil, had NEVER had the CV joints replaced, the A/C still blew cold, and the only engine repair EVER had been two timing belts replaced (routine maintenance). My sister-in-law drove her Ford for 16 years and put 300,000+ miles on it with less than $400 in total repairs. It, too, was traded in reasonably good running condition (for another Ford naturally). American cars generally cost far LESS to maintain after 150,000-200,000 miles than a Toyota because the parts are far less expensive and labor costs are less because they are easier to work on. The commenter making such unfounded statements has obviously never owned an American vehicle.
19th Nov 2006, 00:23
First off, the point I was making about Fords at the Ford service garage was that they were NEW Fords being worked on because they were having problems from the get go. The word "new" was the operative word there, not Ford.
Toyota has far fewer recalls, builds much longer lasting, higher quality vehicles than anybody else. You don't even have to drive a Toyota to know that it is better than Big 3 garbage. Just look at it. Look under the hood; how much more thought out the design and placement of the components are.
ONCE AGAIN, I'll say that this is my third Toyota, and I know for a fact that nothing else could have withstood the beatings that the first two took. I don't care how many of you think that your Fords and Chevy's perform as well as my Toyota, because you are wrong and none of them do.
I don't think that it is very admirable of people who drive Fords and Chevy's to claim that they are as reliable as Toyota's and Honda's. The thing that you are missing is that even if you get lucky and your Chevy runs OK for a while, you're still missing out on the enjoyment of driving something that is well put together. It's a different experience, a better one. I don't care if you drive a Corvette, it's still a sloppy, poorly assembled car. Toyota's and Honda's specifically make the best cars on the road.
19th Nov 2006, 16:18
Toyotas get greater resale because their price tag is inflated by a mostly perceived value. This begain in the 70s and 80s. Now they're still overpriced and they generally last longer because the population demographic that buys them are generally folks as tame and as bland as the Toyotas they buy. As a result, they follow all the rules and maintain their vehicles by the Toyota Certified demigods (tm), causing those vehicles to last longer.
Also, if you paid such an exorbitant amount for what's really just an appliance, wouldn't you make sure it's maintained well? I would. Obviously that contributes to the survival rate numbers for Toyota vehicles. For various (real) reasons, aside from the quality bogeyman that all the Toyota fanboys love to mention, American cars get discounted ad nauseum, contributing to a misguided notion that they are worth less (not worthless) and must not be good vehicles. This mentality often leads clueless owners to fail the proper maintenance of their American vehicle.
I have owned Toyotas and Acuras in the past and I can safely say that they are nothing at all the write home about. I meticulously maintained both of them and I still had more than my share of trouble. The Acura Integra was a culprit of harboring gremlins in the electrical system, draining my batteries as well as requiring the replacement of my whole starting system. This is without mentioning that the car just hated being in third or fifth gear.
The Toyota, I can say, was simply guilty of being boring as hell. Though at one point, the O2 sensors fried for no particular reason, which was a bit irritating. I would add, though, that the 2000 Corolla I owned was very cheap in build quality and it showed throughout. Reliable? Mostly. Worth the money? No, not at all - and it's my fault for buying it. The 1987 Buick I owned before these two cars, also meticulously maintained, was a far better, enjoyable car and, dollar for dollar, a better deal overall. One could argue that maybe if I had a second American car, I'd have had more chances for disappointment. Maybe. Maybe not. For all the disgusting waxing poetic of Toyota fans, though, I don't see how it's justified.
The value and costs of a car are based on perception. Toyota has an awesome marketing machine that systematically fools people into believing their bland vehicles are worth the extra, inevitable several thousand dollars. Good for them. But that doesn't make their cars better, necessarily. I also know that there's no way to convince a rabid Toyota buyer that this is true and that most of that glory is immaterial and in their head. Of course, if I were unable to admit that I made an unwise purchase, I would do everything in my power to justify it by crowing about how wonderful it is and that it's working on the cure for cancer while parked in my garage. Honest.
How do I know? I used to do that in order to justify the $2,000 extra fleecing I endured just to own a grotesquely dull and rather shoddy Toyota Corolla.
In anticipation of all the comments this comment is sure to draw from Toyota lovers hastily searching for my address so they can run me down, Toyota emblem first, I would like to finally add one thing: