Again, grandad sold GMC's for over 40 years and every truck he's had has been a GMC and a POS. A lot of the local farmers around here started feeling the same way and started buying fords. Same old stuff from Ford, so now some of them are finally looking at the Tundra. Problem is japs aren't offering anything heavy enough to handle some of what these guys need them to do (ie no 3/4 and 1 ton trucks). The solution to that is the farmers just buy a new ford/chevy/GMC every 2-3 years cause that's when they start to fall apart. My closest high school buddy had a 2002 ford F250 he bought new. The engine locked up with 55K on it. It was still under warranty so he took it up figuring he was good to go. They asked him for proof of oil changes (which he had) and proof of air cleaner changes (didn't have) so they only paid for 1/2 the new engine. This guy takes REAL good care of his stuff, does not abuse his trucks, and changes his air filters all the time on everything he uses on the farm. No proof, so he's out 3200 bucks. What kinda POS engine blows after 55K? A POS ford engine.
has anyone ever given you crap for not buying American?
- Thread starter XM DUDE
- Start date
I think the business model of the domestic brands is to discount the new vehicle price and recoup that cost against
a) Ongoing maintenance - even consumables like pads and rotors last less time than they used to and it seems no coincidence that so much does go wrong just after the warranty period.
b) More frequent turnover of vehicles by customers - if its got a useful life of around 3 - 4 years you sell more in the long run.
The import market seems more focussed on selling something at a higher price that lasts (ie getting the money up front). Ultimately it's just a question of how you want to pay -more and more people seem to want the upfront method however since it gives some certainty of costs over time.
a) Ongoing maintenance - even consumables like pads and rotors last less time than they used to and it seems no coincidence that so much does go wrong just after the warranty period.
b) More frequent turnover of vehicles by customers - if its got a useful life of around 3 - 4 years you sell more in the long run.
The import market seems more focussed on selling something at a higher price that lasts (ie getting the money up front). Ultimately it's just a question of how you want to pay -more and more people seem to want the upfront method however since it gives some certainty of costs over time.
If you look up a vehicle on JDPower.com the first part of the listing is for initial quality, below it is mid-term rating and finally long term rating. That said, I am not sure what mid and long-term mean and not every vehicle has data under these headings - 2003 4Runner does not for instance. It seems like 2001 vehicles show up the long term data at least.
TranceKrayz
New member
Hey.....if you want to pretend that an American car is more reliable, then just take off the jap. badges and toss on your choice of Ford, GM, or Dodge. :arrow:
Seriously.....this is not about being "American" or "Un-American". It's about wanting to get the most out of what you pay for, and frankly, most American cars do not give you that.
Seriously.....this is not about being "American" or "Un-American". It's about wanting to get the most out of what you pay for, and frankly, most American cars do not give you that.
JB.
New member
I briefly participated in another forum thread that asked when Toyota would become number one. It seems they've moved into the number two slot, versus GM, based on total unit vehicle sales. Total unit sales is, of course, only own way to measure a company and not a very good one at that. I jumped in on the thread and simply pointed out that if you look at Toyota the way a stock analyst would, you'd find that Toyota is already far and away the #1 automaker.
It's a common misconception that corporate mergers are dangerous due to monopoly concerns. Fact is, most corporate mergers are defensive. Toyota doesn't seem very anxious to get in on the automotive merger frenzy.
It's a common misconception that corporate mergers are dangerous due to monopoly concerns. Fact is, most corporate mergers are defensive. Toyota doesn't seem very anxious to get in on the automotive merger frenzy.
Similar threads
