7th Apr 2009, 20:41

21:25 commented on how well a 1998 Tacoma holds its value keeping it over 200-250,000 miles. If one were to do that, the 2009 Kelly Blue Book value trading in this 1998 gem (average Tacoma model in good condition) would be a whopping $925.00 trade in. Besides the fact it's not a full size... but if I could pick one up for that price, I could park it 99% of the time that I need a full size truck and use it 1% of the time empty to go to the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Any major repair, why keep some old heap over 200,000 miles that has washed all its value out unless you never sell it, can do 100% of all road side repairs yourself to not exceed the value of the vehicle. Most people I know find they want to have some value left in a vehicle to offset a brand new vehicle purchase. It's just not worth repairing if a dealer socks you with a engine/trans replacement with every other single aged component no longer anywhere near new condition. But it's cheap apparently to buy these 200,000 mile plus creampuffs. I would not buy any small domestic pick up either with same mileage or even less as it's not a full size (the actual review topic)

8th Apr 2009, 18:44

There's a number of reasons to keep a vehicle past 200,000 miles. It saves money. Using the bulk of the population as a shining example of what should be done - which is to buy a new car every 5 years - isn't exactly proving anything since the avg. US citizen is around $10,000 in debt and lacks any real savings or retirement. That tends to come from over consumption of goods like cars, flatscreen TVs, and houses.

I've had the same Toyota truck for almost 14 years. It has 220,000 miles on it. It actually still looks and drives like new. The paint even still has a nice shine. I maintain it religiously, change the oil every 3,000 miles, do all the right maintenance, and so on. Other than brake pads, a clutch, a water pump, and a few other little odds and ends, that's all it has needed. As mentioned, it is in fantastic condition. The miles are only incidental because I could easily drive it another 200,000 miles and be just fine.

In the time I've had this truck, the average person has already bought 3 new cars or trucks, which even if bought with residual trade-in value means they've spent 2-3 times as much in the same time period. If I say - keep the truck for a total of 20 years, which seems likely, I would have saved almost 4 times the money over someone who trades in every 5 years. That represents a total savings of anywhere from $75,000-$100,000, which these days means half a decent house, two college educations, or a good amount of retirement. In fact, I've saved more than that already, and that comes from being frugal, but also keeping the same vehicles for long periods.

This comes back to the core issue at hand. I have Toyotas because even though they might not have as many whistles and bells, nor fantastic styling, or even the best interior materials, but ultimately, their drivetrains are absolutely top-notch, easy to service, and well-engineeered and in almost any case perform reliably for long past the time that typical domestic cars and trucks I've owned have made it. To me it is a money saving advantage to own quality engineering... which again is why I own Toyotas.

8th Apr 2009, 19:42

"When a commenter who has previously stated that they have never owned a new domestic or full sized truck suddenly states "I've owned NEW and used domestics", you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter."

"OK, call me a DEMI-GOD. The commenter in question ADMITTED he exaggerated in a later comment. It's in the previous comments (which my wise friends DID bother to read)."

You'll have to forgive my ignorance since I don't know to whom you refer, who YOU are with any certainty, or if you were just making a general statement vs. one referencing a specific event. Furthermore, and I quote, you said "you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter." How can you be sure that the person so identifies themselves with each and every post? That's why I figured that your comment was at least mostly "rhetorical, not historical"... and also virtually impossible without "higher knowledge". If they don't identify themselves, you're stuck disregarding all posts you don't like that sound sort-of like his writing. Sounds almighty convenient.

"Likewise, a car buyer who pays thousands more for a Camry or Accord than they would for a virtually identical-in-every-respect Ford (or Chevy) will staunchly report in a survey that they are "very satisfied", and have had "no problems" to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit they made a bad decision."

I've seen that phenomenon before too, but it was in no way limited to imports. Owners don't like to tell those they know that their new _____ is a piece of crap. But a form won't ridicule you for making a "bad" decision... only your friends or perhaps people on this forum. So I doubt that this reality has very much bearing at all on a mail-in survey or that it specifically helps those companies that you don't like.

Further...merely suggesting that people MIGHT be too emotionally involved with cars to tell the truth even on a survey form, IN NO WAY PROVES IT. I could similarly come up with semi-psychological reasons that all the domestic owners (which would include me, I guess) on this forum are pathological liars (I don't remotely believe this, by the way) but it wouldn't make it true. I could make up similar reasons to doubt virtually every survey ever done, but those reasons would be just doubts and wouldn't discredit the surveys until I have PROOF.

The truth is that the surveys that are being done use different methods and emphasize different aspects of reliability. They ask primarily for parts replaced or trips to the shop. The majors in this regard are mostly consistent with their outcomes. They usually accept no advertising. A person COULD fail to report out of some weird pride but that would be unlikely to help one brand over another so, YES, I believe the surveys are accurate if not scientific.

"There is not, nor ever WILL BE a "scientific type survey" of something as emotionally motivating and purely subjective as reliability in automobiles."

Reliability isn't subjective. How people feel about it IS. So they don't ask how people feel about the reliability of their vehicle. They only ask what went wrong in some appropriate time span. They do this on a form so there is no one to impress or disappoint. They compile that information then report it in some orderly fashion that they've chosen for clarity and accuracy.

The truth remains that most of the people who dislike the surveys seem to do so because they dislike the conclusions of them. They'll say "I had a Cordoba that went 2,000,000 miles before a tune up, so any survey that doesn't show the absolute divine nature of Cordobas must be flawed". Not true. That would assume that:

#1 all Cordobas were built exactly the same

#2 all Cordobas were driven exactly the same

#3 all Cordobas were driven in exactly the same environs

#4 all Cordobas were maintained exactly the same

#5 all other potential variables were perfectly controlled as well. Surveys are able to ignore the variables and just report the outcomes using objective standards. Anything less is INDEED less.

So, to conclude, I respectfully (but nearly completely) disagree with your approach to these issues.... even if you ARE a demi-god :)