8th Apr 2008, 16:09
I drove a Dodge Viper at the speed limit on the interstate legal at only 1500 rpm slightly above idle; what's your point? Of course I can go 0-60 in first gear with 5 more gears left... what scares me is drivers such as this guy driving a top heavy non aerodynamic truck at 90 mph!
8th Apr 2008, 18:26
Way back in 1965 a team of totally stock Mercury Comets (made by Ford and containing 100% domestic parts) logged 100,000 miles at Daytona International Speedway at an average speed of 100mph. Proof that the myth of domestic unreliability was a myth over 40 years ago. Since my new Ford only turns 2600 rpm's at 90mph, I'm sure it could cruise 100,000 miles at that speed very effortlessly. That's barely a fast idle.
Incidentally, I've never even met anyone who had to replace an engine or transmission in any Ford vehicle before 200,000 miles.
8th Apr 2008, 19:22
You know, fans of the Big 3 just never get it. Just because one of their cars miraculously runs to 300,000 or better, they think that it's as good as a Toyota. That's wrong, and here's why. Let's compare two of my previous vehicles, both of about the same time period, a '95 Dakota, and my current '98 Tacoma. Neither ever broke down. The Dakota was perfect to 115,000, other than a minor tranny fluid leak, until someone ran a stop sign and totaled it for me. I currently have the Tacoma, which has been absolutely flawless.
OK: let's start with the true test of a truck, off-road use. Towing capacity does NOT measure the 'toughness' of a truck, despite what some think. Both trucks have/had a V-6, same displacement. The Dodge got about 16 mpg if I gave it just enough gas to move, and a lot less than that if I actually tried to drive it. The Tacoma gets at least 19 no matter how I drive it and up to 24 on the highway.
Off road, the body of the Dodge squeaked and twisted enough that I slowed down for fear of the glass popping out. The Toyota feels rock solid under much worse treatment than I ever gave the Dakota. The Dakota's doors, tailgate, and fenders began to rust badly after a few years. I STILL have the Tacoma, cleaned both trucks equally, and the Toyota still has NO rust anywhere on the body.
Same goes for the interior. The seats fell apart and the dash cracked all over the place in the Dodge. The Toyota's interior, while worn and old, has no rips, no cracks yet. Toyota wins again.
The controls and levers in the cab, OK, this may be opinion, but in my opinion Toyota put WAY more thought into the size, placement, etc. of all the gadgets than any of my domestics.
The paint; the Toyota's paint, even after being driven through brush, off road, whatever, looks a LOT better than the Dodge did, not to mention my 'red' Dodge had a weird orange tint to it because of the cheap PPG paint they used on it, and it faded badly. The Toyota looks pretty close to new with a coat of wax. Also, the paint on the Toyota is put on completely and covers everything whereas the Dodge had a bunch of areas where it was 'thin' or even unfinished in some areas, with weird overspray under the hood and inside the cab when you open the doors. Not so with the Toyota.
And what tells me most about build quality is how the truck feels when you hit a bump or hole. The Dodge was all over the place and rattled. The Tacoma just absorbs it, with NO squeaks, rattles, etc.
All of my former Toyota's have been head and shoulders above all of my former domestics. I could compare the Tercel and the '95 Toy. truck I had to other domestic cars and trucks I've owned in the same way as I have just done.
Only diehard Big 3 fans are unwilling to admit the truth; Toyota makes a better product. Period.
9th Apr 2008, 11:05
You have done an excellent job of justifying why you believe that your 1998 Toyota Tacoma was better than your 1995 Dodge Dakota. That is all that you have done, though, because your belief/opinion does not constitute reality, and comparing two 10-year-old vehicles has no bearing on the quality of new vehicles or on the quality of entire manufacturer.
Perhaps if somebody were interested in what kind of used car (older used car, that is) to buy, you would have a good argument as to what kind of small pickup is better. However, you state that the 1995 Dodge Dakota was flawless until 115,000 miles, until somebody totaled it. You make the Dodge sound pretty good, which is why it's difficult to understand your rant against "junk" domestics.
9th Apr 2008, 16:12
OK here you go... I have a 2001 Dodge Dakota Extended Cab with the V8; runs perfectly at 170,000 miles. It's a company provided vehicle... another saleman has 220,000 miles on his, had the rear replaced and is driving it daily.
I do get that these run great... what I don't get is someone that has a very limited history; perhaps bought a couple used domestics, and they have luck with an import and that's the basis of comparison.
I know these specific vehicles since time of purchase. They are well maintained, fluids and filters maintained never any recommended service overlooked or neglected and are treated with respect. Our company buys domestics and I have never seen a motor or trans replacement ever.
Keep in mind that a company vehicle keeps a very impartial outlook...... no investment, no gas, maintenance or insurance costs. If these vehicles were otherwise, I would complain without hesitation as they are used by one individual since new and turned in.
9th Apr 2008, 17:17
"You know, fans of the Big 3 just never get it. Just because one of their cars miraculously runs to 300,000 or better, they think that it's as good as a Toyota."
I am certainly one of those domestic fans who doesn't get it --- that is, doesn't get why anybody would drool over an old Toyota. I've had a dozen domestics, every one I've owned, that went over 200,000 miles. Now really, when you have a dozen different domestics, including GM, Chrysler, and Ford, that went from 210,000 to 260,000 on the original engine and transmission, needing only routine maintenance, does that sound like a fluke? With consistent reliability like that, I will continue to "not get" why I'm supposed to believe that Toyota is so much better.
8th Apr 2008, 11:21
16:27 you have owned 7 vehicles... I have had over 30 new ones; some company cars, but driven no differently. I have also had a number of used cars, but I am commenting only on vehicles I have had first hand knowledge since time of purchase.
Since 2000 I have 6 new vehicles; the last 3 have been domestics. I have seen Honda really go downhill mechanically. In turn my new domestics have had no issues.
I do not drive 90 mph as you seem to deem necessary... especially having a factory GPS it seems the quickest and safest means to go from I point to another in a safe manner.
I wonder of your 7 vehicles how many you actually purchased new, or did you buy someone else's problems? I never comment on vehicles that could have had no preventive maintenance done prior to my ownership.
I can give first hand knowledge on late model vehicles I have owned that have relevance to new purchasers however. You may not want to hear it, but my newer imports are not not anywhere as good as before..... that's the way it is. I call it as it is, and I am commenting on the present, not the 70's, 80's or 90's....