"Ted B." wrote in message
eenews.net...

I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true, that would tend to make
Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it? After all, what's the point
of
spending the money to manufacture (or buy) something that will last 20
years
if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

That's one way to look at it. Or you could look at it like this . . .
Japs
design cars to last 6 years (apparently), and those cars designed to last
6
years actually last 20 or 30 years, if well maintained. Meanwhile, Ford
and
Chevy try to design a car to last 6 years, but they don't last more than 2
or 3 even IF well maintained. Yes, I'm exaggerating. Don't flame me.
:) -Dave


I've asked for cites to back up such sentiments, and the no one has come up
with any. I've managed to find one - the cite is
http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-98-20.pdf

Starting on page 24, the authors note:

Evidence on the superior maintenance characteristics of Japanese cars comes
from Crandall and co-authors who tabulate Consumer Reports readers' surveys
on frequency of repair. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, these tabulations
show that the frequency-of-repair record for Japanese cars is consistently
much better than for domestics. However, they note that the data are far
from ideal in that the sample is self-selected and the criterion is
subjective. We circumvent both problems by comparing survival rates of
Japanese and American cars for various vintages beginning in the late 1960s.

On page 28 they state

The three panels in Figure 12 show the death rates by age for Japanese and
domestic vintages. For 1968 vintages, beginning at age 6, Japanese auto
death rates are significantly below those of domestic autos. For vintage
1971, Japanese and domestic auto death rates are virtually identical until
age 9, after which Japanese cars do substantially better. By the 1977
vintage there is essentially no difference.

In other words, the fact of the matter is that Japanese makes do not show
any greater longevity than do US makes. As far as the actual numbers (as
opposed to prejudice and imagination) are concerned, Japanese brands haven't
been any longer lived than American makes for the last 30 years or so.

You guys are posting mere opinion. Those opinions may have been in
accordance with the facts 40 years ago, but we're talking about buying cars
today, in 2005, not back in the 1960's or 1970's.

While we're at it, let's look at fuel economy. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for the US passenger car fleet, model
year 2004 had a CAFE mpg of 29.1 overall. Domestics came in at 29.3,
imports at 28.8.

So let's see, you can buy a foreign car or a domestic car. If, as has been
suggested here, you play the probabilities, either choice will last about as
long as the other. If you play the probabilities, you'll get lower mileage
if you buy an import. But you can take comfort in the fact that you paid
more for it.

"FC" wrote in message
...
Lou wrote:
"FC" wrote in message
...
(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more money
to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an article at
one time about some people in China imported the junked car from Japan
as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them up and sold 'em as
used vehicle.


I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true, that would tend to make
Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it? After all, what's the point
of
spending the money to manufacture (or buy) something that will last 20
years
if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

I took it the article I read wasn't made up but I don't have the detail
since I never lived there. Have you considered the following scenario:
If Japs law makes opening a Garage right next to impossible. Then each
time one needs to fix something in his/her car will cost him/her an arm
and a leg. So one might as well drive the car till the warranty expired
and the first "major" trouble shows. In turn the car manufacturer will
design the car to make sure car owner has at least 5 absolutely trouble
freed years.

Suppositions and imagination are no substitute for facts. Several people
have posted to the effect that Japanese cars last longer than US brands, but
have offered no evidence. I've offered facts and posted my cites. I've yet
to see one refuting my cites or offering differing evidence.

"Timothy J. Lee" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Lou wrote:
The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country,
does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000
in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage )
I'm

Looks like the lower lifetime mileage countries are more packed together,
which may mean that cars spend more time in the city (lower mileage but
more wear).

That sounds plausible, but again, what are the facts? How do you know which
countries mentioned have lower lifetime mileages? Canada, for instance, is
a large country, France a relatively small one, but both record the same
mileage durability for their cars. Do you have any statistics that would
show a correlation? Or are you merely making suppositions?

PeteCresswell wrote
Rod Speed wrote
PeteCresswell wrote
Dave C wrote

Now watch all the 'speed kills' idiots

I try to remind them that it's not speed
that kills: it's difference in speed.

Witness the 35 mph car and the 0 mph oak tree.

Mindlessly silly. There is the same DIFFERENCE
in speed between the car and the road surface
too and that doesnt kill much at all.

I'd say it's highly relevant.

More fool you. As I showed, it doesnt apply to the
road surface which is also 0 mph most of the time.

Your vehicle's speed and the road's lack of speed are not at
odds as they would be in the case of a collision with an oak tree.

It does prove that your original is mindlessly silly.

reams of irrelevant waffle flushed where it belongs

Per Rod Speed:
Witness the 35 mph car and the 0 mph oak tree.

Mindlessly silly. There is the same DIFFERENCE
in speed between the car and the road surface
too and that doesnt kill much at all.

I'd say it's highly relevant.

Your vehicle's speed and the road's lack of speed are not at odds as they would
be in the case of a collision with an oak tree.

Assuming a speed limit of 55; does one come off the on-ramp into
moderately-heavy 70 mph traffic at 35, 55, or as close to 70 as one can get?

If you are in the middle lane and suddenly see you are about miss your exit
ramp, do you swerve into the right lane - in front of an 18-wheeler cruising at
65 - and slam on the brakes in order to make the exit?

If you crest a hill in the left lane of 75 mph traffic and there's a small deer
in the lane - do you stand on the brakes?

My answer in all cases above is that, regardless of absolute speed, I try to
avoid sudden, large differences in relative speed between me and things that can
crush me like a bug.

I'll take 75 mph (at which speed I do *not* feel particularly comfortable in my
particular vehicle) over 45 mph with semi's closing at 70 any day of the week.
--
PeteCresswell