31st May 2009, 09:58
" What I WILL NOT do is sit back and read anti-American industry comments without responding."
"I am a loyal American citizen and have no intention of sitting back and reading constant, unrelenting attacks on any and every product produced by American workers without speaking up."
Then you will note that my comment listing my and my father's experiences with our Tundras was an attempt to add more information to the pool and no anti-American diatribe. Your response was very anti-import and not very related to my comments at all. You were provoking debate -- not me. I simply posted our experiences... you responded by putting them down. In short, You weren't responding; You were provoking debate. You really can't honestly do that and then absolve yourself by saying that you were simply *responding* to some myth-driven hypemonger... because that simply didn't happen here.
"I've stated REPEATEDLY that we own THREE TO FIVE vehicles at any given time. DO THE MATH."
Math is no problem. If you had owned EVERY ONE of your 30+ vehicles AT THE SAME TIME and kept them all for 30+ years and put an average of 100,000 miles on each, that still works out to... CHA CHING! an average of 1 vehicle and 100,000 miles per year. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY VEHICLES YOU OWN AT ONE TIME. The math works out to the same. The only way, then, for the mileage to work out is for you to only put on a few miles prior to sale or trade (which is what many of your critics have pointed out). But in many, many posts you've said the opposite... that you kept a number of them for 100,000, 200,000, and even 300,000 miles; numbers that have to be further defrayed over the remaining vehicles. Either you drove like a madman (270+ miles a day, 7 days a week, for 30 years), or you really didn't have the vehicles for very many miles before you traded them in (probably less than 30,000 miles on average -- not at all consistent with your claims). In this last post you said that you put on 50,000 one (particularly mobile) year. Your story doesn't add up mathematically unless you've learned the fine art of driving all 3 of your vehicles at the same time... now THAT'S multitasking!
As far as the Tundra is concerned: It was a good, mostly trouble-free vehicle for all of the time I owned it. I traded it at 109,000 miles. My dad still has his. It hasn't been to the shop for any kind of service. We just replaced his front brake pads for the first time at approx 90,000. Like I said, mine had a little brake shudder. His doesn't.
As far a American vehicles are concerned: I like them myself. I own 2 right now. They haven't been perfect, but not bad at all as long as routine maintenance is done.
"I AM a mechanic and have been for over 40 years (look up "mechanic" in a dictionary, it means one who works on mechanical things. NOT necessarily as a profession)."
As far as being a "mechanic" is concerned: I guess I'm a "mechanic" too, then. I grew up on a farm working on everything from equipment and skid steers to tractors, cars and trucks. I do much of my own routine maintenance as well. I just don't think that knowledge is sufficient to misinform others as to where my expertise lies. In other words, I'm no mechanic in the sense that they would understand it. That is not my profession, nor do I think that others should heed my opinions just because I can tear down a small-block Chevy. The pros can do it so much better.
"There is not a SHRED of proof that they are more reliable"
As far as there being "no shred of proof" that Japanese cars are more reliable: More reliable than what? A Fusion? Point made and understood. But if you mean ALL vehicles averaged, there are lots of shreds, both in terms of long and short term reliability. You may disagree with CR, JD Power, Truedelta, etc. but they comprise a type of "shred". Simply discarding them because you disagree isn't honest analysis. I still buy American for many of the other reasons you mentioned.
P.S. I would love to own a Mustang GT! What a blast!
31st May 2009, 10:45
"She even traded one car at only 800 miles because her friends made fun of it."
Was it an Aztek?
"Some vehicles we got tired of VERY quickly and traded at very low mileage. My wife loves new cars and routinely traded every 18 months or sooner until she got her 2003 Envoy (not Trailblazer) and fell in love with it."
Even if you traded several at low mileage, it wouldn't defray the high miles on the others + your claims elsewhere that you generally kept cars to over 100,000 miles (this suggests an average taken from your own claims). Your average still runs 2-3 times what your own numbers suggest. In other words, it would take something like 5.4 vehicles traded with 0 miles on the odometer just to defray the mentioned high mileage examples down to 100,000 miles. Plus if she kept them for only 18 months on average and they had over 100,000 miles at sale, she was a driving maniac. I'm using your own statements. You told others who said that you must not have kept vehicles for long (thus, they suggested, your reliability claims weren't very valid) that you kept most of them to over 100,000 miles and inferred that your ownership experience included most of those miles so it could comprise a representative sample (- the rotten Japanese examples of course). NOW you say that you traded many cars (that had been purchased new) with low mileage just because you were "tired" of them in an effort to satisfy mathematical reality. Your own statements are in contradiction. You can't have it both ways. You either owned many, many cars for very few miles (critics who said that you didn't own them long enough to get a representative sample are right), or you drove an average approaching 270 miles a day, 7 days a week, for 30 years (the mathematical gods are laughing).
31st May 2009, 12:48
You are really stretching it with your assumptions. Yes, there are people here who post multiple times, including you and including me. I too could probably take a stab at making a summary of all your posts and twist your words around if I wanted to, but think doing things such as that are just a tactic for avoiding having to address tough issues.
You are way off in your post thinking the all of the things you mentioned came from one person, much like you simply cannot prove that Japanese vehicles are superior because of all the solid evidence to the contrary, including (but not limited to) Consumer Affairs:
I am glad 13:34 chimed in and responded to your erroneous comments, trying in the usual Toyota fan fashion to dismiss all the claims made by pro domestic people by attacking the commenter, instead of debating the the actual evidence presented to you about all of Toyota's problems.
To take a page out of your play book for a moment and pick apart your post instead of having a substantive discussion about cars, I am the person who mentioned they are a scientist, not 13:34. So, there is at least one of your assumptions that you are blatantly wrong about. I think 13:34 handily dismissed the rest.
Now, instead of attacking people, do you want to explain why Toyota is having so many low mileage engine failures, as I have yet to see a Toyota fan do? Then you might want to explain why Tacoma frames are snapping in half while other vehicles driving around in the exact same conditions are not. How about addressing all the Tundra brake and suspension problems? Yet again, how about the severe body flex in Tundra causing body panels to permanently bend out of shape just from driving down the road? Is this your idea of quality?