8th Mar 2009, 20:40

Well, let's get back to the point then... look at the original review again - "No more GM". That says enough for me. Apparently, this person, like many hundreds of thousands of others, has had enough with crappy GM products. He has switched to Toyota and is happy about that, as is every other person I have ever spoken to that previously owned "domestics". I am part of this group. After owning three Toyota's, you'd have to give me a Chevy, Ford, or Dodge if I'm ever to drive one again. If I'm paying for it myself, it'll be a Toyota, because they run better, smoother, last longer, break down less, and are worth more on trade in because they're built well enough to hold their value. Period.

9th Mar 2009, 11:28

Why not a detailed comparison on new Tundras and the competition... size, capability, warranty, room, handling etc.

9th Mar 2009, 13:31

I think this argument is based on historical performance, expectations, and facts.

I myself am a perfect example of what happens when a company such as GM, Ford, and Chrysler spend decades ignoring the importance of fit, finish, and overall quality. I am 32 years old. When I was a kid, Mom had a 78' Malibu. Dad drove a Oldsmobile Delta 88. Later Dad had a Buick Riviera. The problem was that all three of these cars were jalopies. I specifically recall Dad cussing almost every time we took the Buick out to the store since something was perpetually broke. I have memories of spending many Saturdays in dealership waiting rooms while the Buick, Malibu, or Delta 88 had some other issue repaired.

Then Dad bought the company car, a 2 year old 85' Camry. We kept it for almost 10 years before buying another Camry. It never had a problem, which to us was simply amazing. That was followed by a steady stream of other Toyotas: a Toyota truck, 4runner, Avalon, and now a Tundra. NONE - and I mean none of these have had anything other than routine maintenance, and trust me - my parents are not the best at remembering to do things like change the oil and so forth.

So there's the reason for the bias. Perhaps today's bias is undeserved and American cars are now as good as Japanese brands - specifically the Big Three Japanese brands. But cars and trucks are expensive, and if you have distinct memories of how bad American cars were in the 70's and 80's (don't deny it - they were AWFUL back then) then would you be willing to make a possible $20,000 mistake in today's economy? As you can see, GM, Ford, and Chrysler made some bad mistakes that haunt them to this very day.

In regards to these comments:

"The Tacoma has exactly the SAME reliability rating as the Ford Ranger, which is less expensive and comes with a better warranty."

My brother owned a Ranger. I say owned because the transmission gave up at 160k. I still have my Tacoma of the same vintage, still going at 220,000 miles. No need to say more.

"I don't understand how people who are supposedly car-literate keep confusing the Aveo with GM-built cars. The Aveo is Korean. It is basically a mechanical twin under the sheet metal to the Hyundai Accent. I have driven the Aveo and found it to be an incredibly smooth and good riding car for a sub-compact. The ride is better than that of the Accent. Friends who own Aveos and follow the recommended maintenance procedures have had no trouble with theirs, though the highest mileage any of them has on theirs is just over 98,000 miles."

You'd be surprised. Many I've read here suddenly like the Aveo just because it has a Chevy badge stuck to the front. But the cars are abysmal excuses of engineering. These are NOT rated very highly at all. I personally rented one in Hawaii, hated the ride and comfort so much that I returned it 2 hours later and upgraded. You couldn't pay me to own that car. It's an embarrassment and GM needs to yank the plug on it.

9th Mar 2009, 14:57

20:40 Toyota what? GM what? How many were Tundras, Silverados or are we on a car or small truck comment? That is exactly what the problem is with generalization of a manufacturer...

What year Tundras, Silverados did you own? There's 3 involved. How was the towing, load carrying and other capabilities of your Tundra vs. Silverado? And warranty.

9th Mar 2009, 18:58

In the 70-80's I owned new what I consider the real Japan imports, however today you rarely see them. I liked the 70's not 80's Celica GT's and also the Datsun 240Z and later up to the 280ZX, but where are they today? Perhaps victims of chronic rusting, heavy oil consumption or depreciating and mechanical issues to the point of not having enough value.

I agree the smog/pollution devices that became mandatory created issues in the mid 70's domestics... prior to 72 it was extremely easy to work and maintain your own vehicles. My dad had cars I would love to have today and they were very reliable. He stepped up not sold out of disappointment. A lot of people were foolhardy in hindsight, trading in some really great classic cars during the long mid 70's gas lines and odd and even days when you could only buy gas. Quite a few of my friends have regretted going for the gas savers, but who wanted a Hemi Cuda with no gas for it?

I see the same issue a year back people buying small again over gas. Panic buying and they could have a much more pleasurable driving vehicle with less issues down the road.

The term jalopy I heard years ago on race tracks, not necessarily all negative, and can be a street rod today. I would use the term "clunker" or rust bucket as many of my early imports were. If you haven't been in a late model model street rod, you may be surprised how nice they are. Nice drivetrains, automatic, all power amenities, retro ice cold air conditioning etc. How much money would you dump into a well worn out 79 Corolla and do a complete restoration? I will watch Barrett Jackson and see if any roll through soon to confirm.

9th Mar 2009, 20:25

I will certainly deny that American cars of the 70's and 80's were "AWFUL". In fact, it was not until 2003 that I finally started seeing new cars that were AS GOOD as the Chargers we had. Examples I have owned?

1971 Dodge Charger (owned 1971-1975) -- dependable, stylish, comfortable

1971 Plymouth Barracuda (owned 1987-present) -- fast, stylish, totally dependable

1973 Dodge Charger (owned 1987-present) -- comfortable, totally dependable, good mileage

1974 Dodge Monaco (owned 1982-1989) -- comfortable, a work-horse, ran and drove great.

1975 Dodge Charger (owned 1975-present) -- totally dependable, very comfortable

1975 Chevy Vega (owned 1984-1986) -- junk

1976 Plymouth Volare (owned 1984-1992) -- totally dependable, ran great, good mileage.

1977 Dodge Tradesman (owned 1986-1998) -- drove great, work-horse

1977 Chevy Vega (owned 1982) --junk

1979 Plymouth Volare (owned 1987-1995) -- totally dependable, ran great

1980 Plymouth Volare (owned 1988-1990) -- totally dependable, ran great

1983 Chevy Cavalier (owned 1988-1995) -- dependable, good mileage but a puddle jumper

1984 Plymouth Reliant (owned 1995-2001) -- totally dependable, good mileage, good ride

1985 Dodge Ram (owned 1996-2007) -- very rugged and durable (260,000 miles speaks for itself)

1989 Chevy 20 Van (owned 1998-2006) -- totally dependable, very comfortable, drove and ran great

1989 Pontiac 6000LE (owned 1998-2005) -- ran great, dependable, good mileage, but a beater.

As you can see, I'm not trying to paint a perfect picture. Our Dodges and Plymouths of the '70s and '80 were great, but the economy GMs were junky to borderline junky, albeit dependable.

But things change -- Chrysler went from building great cars in the '70s to good economy cars in the '80s, to boring with poor quality in the '90s to '00s. However, they are finally building cars that I would give a chance to again --- the Caliber, Charger, 300, Challenger, Avenger. Ford went the other way --- I had a low opinion of them in the '70s and '80s, but by the late '90s and early '00s we were very happy to buy Fords (a '97 and '02).

I would not be afraid to spend $20,000 on a new Dodge or Ford. In fact, we just did spend that on a year-old Cadillac DTS.