25th Mar 2011, 18:27

"Let's see, you keep your Toyota for 15 years, and have been driving for 30 years."

-Yes, the key part of the statement being "at a time", meaning we tend to keep our vehicles for 15 years at a time and have done so for around 30 years. We have owned Toyotas from the early 80's, and now own one from 2005, and a few from the late 90's. None of them have ever given us trouble. Thus I fail to see why we should switch.

26th Mar 2011, 11:18

I see a trend owning the same make and model every 3 years over a long duration than a couple cars. In the 80s and 90s, I agree with you, imports were fine. If we kept them, but we did not. Ever tire of a color or wish you had more options? We bought one new after another, and I can pinpoint 2000 onward when ours had engine and trans issues. We are the same owners, no changes, and garage our cars. We drive domestics today. I just changed my Mobil 1 today.

26th Mar 2011, 11:45

"I have a history of buying new imports, mostly Hondas every 3 years."

No wonder you don't have problems with imports. Even a cheaply built import will generally last out their puny 3-year warranty!! If I traded every three years, I'd never have a problem either. Our current GM SUV is 8 years old and just shy of 100,000 miles. To date it has not even required brake pads, just one battery and one set of tires. I've never had a domestic require anything in the first three years. If you run synthetic oil, you can go three years in a domestic without ever opening the hood.

27th Mar 2011, 15:31

Read again. We bought new imports, and the past 11 years they got worse than ever. Not like our 80s and 90s low production decent ones. After 2000 we still bought, thinking it was only bad luck, maybe a lemon, but not 3 times. The import myth is over in our household.

27th Mar 2011, 15:44

If you don't open the hood, how do you get the synthetic oil into the engine? Seriously though, one set of tires in 50K miles? You are running them off the rims aren't you. I wish I could have had even close to that kind of luck with any GM product I have owned.... and I DID run synthetic oil in all of mine!

The "PUNY" three year warranty you talk about is standard on EVERY brand of car, even GM! They all have a three year 36K mile bumper to bumper warranty. Honda also has a FIVE year warranty on their powertrain that is good for 60K miles. GM has the same exact 5 year warranty that is good for 100K miles. Since it took you 8 years to get to 100K miles, you would have been out of warranty for 3 years on your GM, just like the Honda guy with his supposedly "puny" warranty. The fact that it is 8 years old means that you really have the same exact warranty on both powertrain and bumper to bumper that any Honda does, so what are you even talking about?

We had a 2003 Trailblazer pile of junk, and it had a 3 year 36K mile warranty and that was it!! no extended powertrain warranty or anything else....Talk about puny! Seems GM fans forget about those years now huh? Guess what? It was traded BEFORE 40K miles as it was already starting to have major problems, and with no warranty it would have put us in the poor house had we kept driving it. We bought it brand new and drove 90% highway miles with it. Junk, plain and simple!

Point is very few people will see 100K miles in 5 years... even you! The 5 year 60K mile warranty is adequate for 90% of drivers as it is the average miles one puts on a car in 5 years. I have a Ford that is just about 2 years old, and I have 22K miles on it. By the time I get to 5 years, it will have just around 60K on it... The extra 40K miles is just fluff and marketing hype to make GM appear to offer a better warranty. Stop buying into their warranty as anything better than the competition. After all, you yourself don't even benefit from the extra mileage they offer!

28th Mar 2011, 12:43

Is this the Trailblazer that had rear hatch seals that leaked? Did you replace an engine or a trans at 28,000 miles like we did with our Honda? Fortunately that import trans was under warranty, but what defines junk? No matter what the warranty, that is why we started getting concerned for what faced us down the road. Is this the kind of car you would hang onto after any brief warranty? An average person drives 15000 miles, so in my opinion get rid of it within the last 500 miles left on the warranty.

I am not a fan of low mileage drivetrain issues... even if repaired it shows on the Carfax report and that also hurt our resale like a rock at trade in. Another factor sellers may not know til the day comes. It all shows up unless you go to a place that does not report into Carfax... highly unlikely anymore.

28th Mar 2011, 16:54

50K for a set of tires is not unusual at all. I have a Buick Park Avenue that is close to 7 years old and over 40,000 miles, and I still have the original Good Years. I don't plan on buying any tires for the car, as I plan to trade it in a year and-a-half with about 50,000 miles. I just rotated them at about 35,000 miles for the first time since I have owned the car (since 17,000). The two now in the front still have a lot of tread, and the back two are fine. They are in good shape without any cracking or anything like that too.

28th Mar 2011, 17:17

"Seriously though, one set of tires in 50K miles? You are running them off the rims aren't you."

I assume this is a joke. No set of tires on any new car we have ever owned has needed replacing in 50,000 miles or less. Not even our Japanese import (the worst vehicle we ever drove) required tires that soon. Brake pads yes (every 15,000-20,000 miles) but not tires. Most tires easily go 70,000 miles. The Michelins on our GM were replaced at 75,000 and still had a fair amount of tread. My wife's best friend put over 100,000 miles on the Michelins on her Dodge Caravan. Cheap tires may wear out sooner, but most domestics come with pretty good tires that should easily go 70,000 miles.