On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon"

Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.

Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
here in sunny San Antonio.

Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
their on a local level.

They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.

Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
(according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.

Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.

The second big mistake was to think that folks would pay the
difference. Sure, the Toyota is probably a better truck. But when I
was thinking of a new purchase about '07, the difference in price was
substantial. The new Ford would have cost me (after considerable
teeth gnashing negotiations) around $24K. But the new San Antonio
built Tundra would have been $34,900, with no negotiations.

That's 30 f'ing percent difference!!

Add in the financing on that difference, and it will knock you over.

There is also a perception here and in the surrounding areas that if
you have a problem with your Ford, GM or Dodge truck that if you need
parts in an emergency, you can find them cheaper and easier than if
you are looking for
parts for a Nissan or Toyota.

I would think that probably a large part of San Antonians are blue
collar, and certainly a lot of folks I know are. They work on their
own vehicles if at all possible. So if your starter or alternator
goes out on Sunday, it is nice to be able to go to the local auto
parts store and pick one up for a couple of hundred dollars and put it
on. Much better than waiting at the Toyota dealership for a $400+
starter on Monday and missing a day of work after the purchase to
install it.

Next, the Toyota guys admitted that they needed more offerings to take
on the local truck market. They brazenly bragged that they would take
over the truck market in Texas now that they had trucks made here.

But (mistake #3), they made no "work truck" available.

Most of us tooling around in our trucks don't need leather interiors,
a six banger CD casette changer, remote starter/kill switch, dual
climate controls, GPS navigation, 2 power points, deluxe wheel
packages and fancy, eye catching metalized plastic knobs and plastic
wood on the interiors.

So after these missteps, where did that leave Toyota? Last year,
after only being open for one, they "retooled" and came up with a less
well appointed truck. But since the idea was already in the heads of
most that they were too expensive, it was too late to save the
downward spiral.

So at the first of this year, they announced that sales were
"disappointing", and canceled the planned plant expansion that was to
take place to cover all the orders they had expected and taken for
granted would happen.

Then they dropped their prices to be more in line with the rest of the
market. Things didn't get better as their is now a perception that
there was some "friggin' in the riggin" " and that lowering their
prices as much as they have was the same as admitting they were trying
to screw folks.

Then they got caught in the same hole as every other manufacturer.
They have had a couple of recalls that didn't set well, and there
have been some mechanical problems that have caused some of the
truck's mechanics to be redesigned. (One of the problems for Toyota
is that being local, if the paint chips on a truck the local "news
defenders" send a team out to the plant to see of it is a trend.)

But now... to compound things they are trapped in the same stale
market as everyone else in the car industry. They laid off a couple
of hundred workers last month, and the plant has been shuttered since
the first of August and will be until the first of October. Closed.
Period. No work.

To their great credit, Toyota has seen fit to pay their workers FULL
wages while sorting this out. It isn't altogether an altruistic favor
on the part of Toyota; they have many thousands of dollars in training
even the workers with even the most mundane jobs.

It is an interesting, ongoing soap opera here. Toyota isn't going
anywhere. But lessons were learned the hard way, just like at GM,
Ford, etc. The public will eventually get what they want. You can
now buy a Tundra work type truck, for just a smidge over the Fords and
Chevys.

But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
with the lowly public consumer.

With that in mind, it will be interesting to see their next move.

Just a few thoughts...

Robert

wrote:
....
But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
with the lowly public consumer.
....
That jibes w/ what I observe in farm country w/ oil as the secondary
industry use. I've not seen a single Halliburton, Schlumberger, Best,
or any other service or pipeline vehicle other than the Big 3.

Last time there was even one on the lot in town it was still at least
20% list above GM product and as noted, it was in the pimped out version.

The lack of the diesel really hurt them here where the amount of heavy
towing is quite high -- if not large stock/horse trailers, anhydrous
ammonia tanks into soft, sandy fields take torque and lugging power.

There are a few I know who use them to take the dogs out for pheasant
hunting, but that's about as rugged a use as they get. That's not
"work" in my way of thinking...well it's work, but not for the truck.

--
--

In article 25de507d-95bf-4962-bbcf-
,
says...
On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon"

Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.

Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
here in sunny San Antonio.

Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
their on a local level.

They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.

Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
(according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.

Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

Freight is the same no matter where the vehicle is delivered. Any
differences in price is the dealer's, not Toyota's.

The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.

That's likely the whole story right there. The local dealers
thought they could gouge the consumer.


snip

--
Keith

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston
the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's
than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.

I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

--

Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a question
to which is the better vehicle for the money.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon"

Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.

Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
here in sunny San Antonio.

Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
their on a local level.

They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.

I'll agree that the Tundra is more expensive, I paid $5000 more for a
similiarly equipped model as the GMC and I will have to say that I did not
even care for the looks of the Tundra. But then I drove one after driving a
Chevrolet and GMC. Comfort plays a major factor in what I buy. We very
often use the 4 doors for friends and other family members. The GM vehicles
still require the back seat riders to sit at a 90 degree angle and the back
doors move and shift enough that the driver can see that movement with a
simple quick glance while driving.



Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
(according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.

I suspect theat Gulf States Toyota may be more to blame for this.


Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

Strange isn't it. By the same token how can I buy gasoline cheaper 85 miles
west of Houston than in Houston?


The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.

The second big mistake was to think that folks would pay the
difference. Sure, the Toyota is probably a better truck. But when I
was thinking of a new purchase about '07, the difference in price was
substantial. The new Ford would have cost me (after considerable
teeth gnashing negotiations) around $24K. But the new San Antonio
built Tundra would have been $34,900, with no negotiations.

I can see your point. It's too bad you were/are not afforded the same
opportunity. Mine stickered with TTL drive out for about $35k, I drove out
for $28k less trade in. The GMC was quoted at $23k less trade in. After
driving the GMC and Chevy I did not want to buy a new truck. That changed
after driving the Tundra. After having GMC and Chevy trucks that I was
happy with the $5k more for the Tundra seemed well worth the extra
investment for me.



That's 30 f'ing percent difference!!

I hear you and don't blame you at all under those circumstances.


Add in the financing on that difference, and it will knock you over.

Yeah, I gave up financing some years back, tooo expensive.



There is also a perception here and in the surrounding areas that if
you have a problem with your Ford, GM or Dodge truck that if you need
parts in an emergency, you can find them cheaper and easier than if
you are looking for
parts for a Nissan or Toyota.

Well in defence of the imports you mention here, I'll mention again that I
made my living and retired after exclusively selling GM products and parts
for 18 years. You find parts for Ford, GM, and Dodge because they sell real
well, Why? They have a high failure rate. Why do you have to order
Toyota parts? Because they dont fail very often. A dealer or auto parts
store makes money on parts that sell over and over. My criteria for
stocking a part for GM at the dealership was to put it in inventory if it
sold 2 times in 3 months and that is being very pickey about when to stock a
part. The vast makority of parts that I stocked sold at least once a week
on average, many of those parts were several times a day and those were not
maintence parts.
When I still worked for the Olds dealer there was a Toyota dealer next door.
Our warranty parts pile waiting for the Olds servive rep to scrap varied
from 200 to 400 parts monthly. The Toyota dealer typically and 4 or 5 parts
by compairison.
I'll totally agree that American brand parts are easier to find but in
general that is not actually a good thing for all the customers.
When I was the GM for an AC/Delco wholesaler our only customers were GM
dealers and a majority of those customers were in Houston. We probably only
had 75 customers total and we absolutely refused to sell to any one unless
they were a GM dealership. We stocked alternators, starters, and AC
compressors by the thousands in only about 75 different part numbers total.
We turned that inventory 6 to 8 times a year. Basically our better
customers would buy 10-15 of one part number alternator on a weekly basis.
A mix of 45 to 60 alternators weekly to the same customer was normal.
I also was over an Isuzu parts department during the same time I was at the
Olds dealership. We stocked no starters or alternators at all, and sold 2
or 3 a year.



I would think that probably a large part of San Antonians are blue
collar, and certainly a lot of folks I know are. They work on their
own vehicles if at all possible. So if your starter or alternator
goes out on Sunday, it is nice to be able to go to the local auto
parts store and pick one up for a couple of hundred dollars and put it
on. Much better than waiting at the Toyota dealership for a $400+
starter on Monday and missing a day of work after the purchase to
install it.

True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold gaskets,
1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC blower
motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K miles.
And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get me
started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....




Next, the Toyota guys admitted that they needed more offerings to take
on the local truck market. They brazenly bragged that they would take
over the truck market in Texas now that they had trucks made here.

That seems to be working pretty well in Houston but being built in Texas
probably does not really matter, not all of them are built in Texas.


But (mistake #3), they made no "work truck" available.

True


Most of us tooling around in our trucks don't need leather interiors,
a six banger CD casette changer, remote starter/kill switch, dual
climate controls, GPS navigation, 2 power points, deluxe wheel
packages and fancy, eye catching metalized plastic knobs and plastic
wood on the interiors.

So after these missteps, where did that leave Toyota? Last year,
after only being open for one, they "retooled" and came up with a less
well appointed truck. But since the idea was already in the heads of
most that they were too expensive, it was too late to save the
downward spiral.

I can certainly see that happening.



So at the first of this year, they announced that sales were
"disappointing", and canceled the planned plant expansion that was to
take place to cover all the orders they had expected and taken for
granted would happen.

I'm betting the economy in general is affecting sales more than anything.




Then they dropped their prices to be more in line with the rest of the
market. Things didn't get better as their is now a perception that
there was some "friggin' in the riggin" " and that lowering their
prices as much as they have was the same as admitting they were trying
to screw folks.

That would appear sto be ture... I recall VW dropping the prices of their
cars several thousand dollars when their new models came out. That left a
bad taste in the previous model owners mouths.


Then they got caught in the same hole as every other manufacturer.
They have had a couple of recalls that didn't set well, and there
have been some mechanical problems that have caused some of the
truck's mechanics to be redesigned. (One of the problems for Toyota
is that being local, if the paint chips on a truck the local "news
defenders" send a team out to the plant to see of it is a trend.)

And probably more recalls than you will ever know. Most manufacturers will
perform recalls that may not be announced, usually done when yo come in for
ohter warranty work or for normal service. I recall the Ford Focus having
in excess of 100 before the car was even sold during it's first year of
production.



But now... to compound things they are trapped in the same stale
market as everyone else in the car industry. They laid off a couple
of hundred workers last month, and the plant has been shuttered since
the first of August and will be until the first of October. Closed.
Period. No work.

To their great credit, Toyota has seen fit to pay their workers FULL
wages while sorting this out. It isn't altogether an altruistic favor
on the part of Toyota; they have many thousands of dollars in training
even the workers with even the most mundane jobs.

It is an interesting, ongoing soap opera here. Toyota isn't going
anywhere. But lessons were learned the hard way, just like at GM,
Ford, etc. The public will eventually get what they want. You can
now buy a Tundra work type truck, for just a smidge over the Fords and
Chevys.



But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
with the lowly public consumer.

With that in mind, it will be interesting to see their next move.

Just a few thoughts...

Robert

"dpb" wrote in message ...
wrote:
...

...
That jibes w/ what I observe in farm country w/ oil as the secondary
industry use. I've not seen a single Halliburton, Schlumberger, Best, or
any other service or pipeline vehicle other than the Big 3.

Last time there was even one on the lot in town it was still at least 20%
list above GM product and as noted, it was in the pimped out version.

The lack of the diesel really hurt them here where the amount of heavy
towing is quite high -- if not large stock/horse trailers, anhydrous
ammonia tanks into soft, sandy fields take torque and lugging power.

There are a few I know who use them to take the dogs out for pheasant
hunting, but that's about as rugged a use as they get. That's not "work"
in my way of thinking...well it's work, but not for the truck.


Well, in defense of the new Tundra, time will tell.

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston
the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's
than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.
I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

--

Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a question
to which is the better vehicle for the money.

In that case there's absolutely no question in my mind the Tacoma is
overpriced. For that a purpose a Ford Econoline would do.

--

"Leon" wrote in message
True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold
gaskets,
1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC
blower
motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K miles.
And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get me
started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....

You know what that sounds like ~ The inkjet market. Original product is
cheap, the real profit comes with the sale of consumables, in this case, car
parts. Wonder how much of it is planned obsolescence?

On Aug 22, 10:47 pm, "Leon" wrote:

SNIP of good stuff

Leon, thanks for the insight. I appreciate an intelligent look from a
guy with your personal experience. You make a lot of good points, and
I got a good chuckle out of the fact that your take was that the fact
was the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
were so needed.

How true is that?

My last two trucks have been Fords, simply because they "had the deal"
and were more comfortable to me than the GM products. This is my 14th
truck, and personally I really don't care what brand I drive as long
as it wears well and is reliable. Overall I have been lucky with my
last 3 Fords, but the best truck I ever owned was a '75 GMC "Heavy
Half" with a three on the tree and a Olds made 350 engine in it.

I have never owned a foreign made truck, but like a lot of my
compatriots, we have had enough of shoddy domestic products. I was
leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
truck, but their repair record scared me off.

I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
wagon.

My amigo paid his $35K for it, but he only uses it for light work.
Here's hint of the difference: my truck is PACKED with tools and odds
and end of repair crap. In his truck tool box, he still has room for
his small bag of golf clubs.

I will personally feel better about the Toyotas as work trucks when I
see them with head racks for ladders, bed liners, tool boxes and bed
side tool boxes, maybe pulling around a small skid steer loader, and/
or any of the other job specific hardware on the trucks that let you
know their job is work.

Like you, I will pay more if I think I am getting more. But the jury
is still out. And as before, you can bet I will be looking somewhere
else than the big three next time I buy.

Thanks again for the insight.

Robert

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In
Houston the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new
Tundra's than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.
I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

--

Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a
question to which is the better vehicle for the money.

In that case there's absolutely no question in my mind the Tacoma is
overpriced. For that a purpose a Ford Econoline would do.


Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold
gaskets,
1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC
blower
motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K
miles.
And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get
me
started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....

You know what that sounds like ~ The inkjet market. Original product is
cheap, the real profit comes with the sale of consumables, in this case,
car
parts. Wonder how much of it is planned obsolescence?

Actually back in the 70, 80, and 90's when I was still in the thick of the
automotive marketing Ford was always the less expensive vehicle to buy when
compared to the comparable GM vehicle. Because dealerships take trade-ins
and often kept them to sell on the used car lot they also had to do some
repairs to the vehicle that they took in on trade. More often than not in
Houston the trade in on an Oldsmobile was a Ford or Mercury vs. any other
brand other than GM. Parts that the consumer normally would not purchase
like a dash or door trim panel were often 50 to 100% more expensive to
purchase than the relatively same GM part and that was also when comparing
the list price.

Planned obsolescence? Nawwwww.. LOL... Actually GM built some really good
parts and some really **** poor parts. As an example the GM blower motor
for the AC always went bad. It would work but would develop a squeak. They
were unable to fix/did not want to fix this problem from 1978 until at least
1995. Oddly GM alternators were pretty reliable until they switched over to
using a single serpentine drive belt vs. the multiple belts to drive the
individual components. Once the alternators were fitted with the larger
pulleys for the serpentine belts they started to burn up, the front bearing
got hot enough that most all the electronics, stator, voltage regulator,
rectifier bridge, and brushes would burn up and replacing the unit was less
expensive that repairing it. Same goes for the old GM AC compressors. The
old style 6 cylinder Frigidaire compressors could be easily rebuilt, the R4
radial replacements that began to show up in the mid 70's could not be
rebuilt.

Leon wrote:
....
Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.

Far more economical, even if a Ford...and it wouldn't be me...

--

wrote:
....
...the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
were so needed.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. They're needed because
there are so many vehicles in service. They're cheap(er) because there
is volume...chicken/egg.
....

leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
truck, but their repair record scared me off.

The thing is, this is more perception than reality. There are problems
in all vehicles; you don't hear about them in the foreigns particularly
in trucks more because there simply aren't as many.

Since the mid-70s/80s period, I really do not believe there's a
significant overall difference. We use trucks _hard_ and simply do not
have the kinds of complaints Leon makes. A/C in the '78 still is cold
w/ never a service. One water pump on six vehicles that I can recall
since sometime back in the early 80's. No transmissions, starters,
engines, ever going back to the '58. (Although I did rebuild the '72 at
around 200k as choice personal truck but it was still running at the
time and could have gone quite bit longer before it was required. It's
still in service w/ a plumber friend who has had no maintenance since
gave it to him in '99.)

I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
wagon.

Unless you use the truck as a car office and do mostly office work as
crew chief or similar, the truck is a "get you there" to go _to_ the job
along w/ the stuff required to do the job. If it is that kind of use,
perhaps amenities are worth the premium; they're surely not for me. The
quiet lasts for a little while but rough gravel roads soon loosen up
_any_ frame no matter how tight it is initially and the fancy interior
gets as dirty as does the plain from road and field and grain dust,
cattle and so on.

It comes back to is it a "real" work truck or a car that has some
carrying capacity? I agree the Tundra seems to be pretty well made as
well but they don't deserve the premium. For our application the lack
of the diesel pretty much relegates them to the sidelines anyway...

--

wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 10:47 pm, "Leon" wrote:

SNIP of good stuff

Leon, thanks for the insight. I appreciate an intelligent look from a
guy with your personal experience. You make a lot of good points, and
I got a good chuckle out of the fact that your take was that the fact
was the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
were so needed.

How true is that?

And to add to that Robert, a friend that I grew up with was all GM in mind
set as was I. Our parents only bought GM products. He however ended up
going to work for a neighbor at a Ford dealership, I eventually ended up
working with GM products. He moved up to to eventually become the service
manager at the Ford truck center and commented ond day that Ford is
targeting a group of people that are not picky. They simply want a vehicle
that could get them from point A to point B reliably and one that could be
repaired quickly when it broke down. That was back in the early 90's.
I guess the thing that really make me start looking at imports more
seriousely was when out dealership built a new facility close to the Toyota
dealership. We also added Isuzu to our offerings. As I have previousely
mentioned vwhen isiting with the Toyota parts manager and seeing the few
items in their warranty scrap pile and our Isuzu scrap pile as compared to
our Oldsmobile warranty scrap pile I had a pretty good indicator as to which
car companies were building the more reliable product. When a vehicle is
under warranty the owner seldom hesitates to complain about a problem.
Literally 40% of our Oldsmobile mechanical repair business was for warranty
reasons and our shop had a very good reputation.
I bought my wife an Acura in 1989, our first import and it was the first
small car that we easily put over 100k miles on with out any break downs.
IIRC I had to replace the radiator after the 100k mark. Same goes for the
87 Isuzu Trooper, no break downs in the 10 years that I drove it.
While new vehicles are exciting as you well know when you work with the
vehicles or nail guns, saws, etc. day in and day out you loose the
enthusiasm and start to put much more emphysis on reliability and quality.


My last two trucks have been Fords, simply because they "had the deal"
and were more comfortable to me than the GM products. This is my 14th
truck, and personally I really don't care what brand I drive as long
as it wears well and is reliable. Overall I have been lucky with my
last 3 Fords, but the best truck I ever owned was a '75 GMC "Heavy
Half" with a three on the tree and a Olds made 350 engine in it.

Ahhh the old gold "Rocket" engine or was it painted black? Back when GM's
different product lines actually designed and built their on engines, the
Olds engine was hard to beat.


I have never owned a foreign made truck, but like a lot of my
compatriots, we have had enough of shoddy domestic products. I was
leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
truck, but their repair record scared me off.

I looked at the Nissan also, my nephiew "owned" one after owning a GMC and 3
previous Dodges. Each of the Dodges left him high and dry so he decided to
try the GMC. He loved it as always did what he needed it to do and it never
had major problems like the Dodges did. Then he bought the Titan and was
very unhappy with the gas mileage. While none of them get great mileage I
can say that I am happy the the Tundra gets 20 mph on the highway with the
5.7 whaich was the same as the 97 Chevy with the 5.0 engine and 150 less hp.
In town I now get a consistant 14.5-15-8 mpg as compared to the 13-14 on
the old Chevy.


I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
wagon.

Tha tis exactly what put me in the Tundra.


My amigo paid his $35K for it, but he only uses it for light work.
Here's hint of the difference: my truck is PACKED with tools and odds
and end of repair crap. In his truck tool box, he still has room for
his small bag of golf clubs.


I will personally feel better about the Toyotas as work trucks when I
see them with head racks for ladders, bed liners, tool boxes and bed
side tool boxes, maybe pulling around a small skid steer loader, and/
or any of the other job specific hardware on the trucks that let you
know their job is work.

I really think you are going to see this happen, I think Toyota wants their
cut of the pie.


Like you, I will pay more if I think I am getting more. But the jury
is still out. And as before, you can bet I will be looking somewhere
else than the big three next time I buy.

Thanks again for the insight.

Robert

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.

Far more economical, even if a Ford...and it wouldn't be me...

--

LOL

OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL

"dpb" wrote in message ...
wrote:
...
...the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
were so needed.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. They're needed because there
are so many vehicles in service. They're cheap(er) because there is
volume...chicken/egg.

Both ture observations.



...

leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
truck, but their repair record scared me off.

The thing is, this is more perception than reality. There are problems in
all vehicles; you don't hear about them in the foreigns particularly in
trucks more because there simply aren't as many.

That is not entirely ture. I live in Houston and have done so since the
early 70's. Most every vehicle is available here and seen on a daily basis
including Ferrari. Because Houston is still growing there is opportunity
for more and more dealerships. If you live in a city or small town that is
not growing rapidly the opportunity to add another sucessful dealership is
limited. Because vehicles are major investments a new model is not usually
purchased on a whim and the customer is more comfortable with what he knows.
Typically GM, Ford, and Dodge have been around for a very long time in any
decent sized town. In the 70's you did not see as many imports in Houston
as you do now. I dont exagerate when I say that half or more vehicles on
the road are Japanese and that trend is growing. The clostest Toyota
dealership to me is my far busier in the service department than probably
the largest Chevy dealer ship in the country where my son works part time.
And don't equate that to a lack of reliabibliy. The majority of traffic in
the Toyota service department is for the quick lube center which also
rotates and balances tires, and changes batteries.
YES all vehicles have problems and yes you typically only hear about the
ones with problems. You more often hear about problems than you do
reliability. When I worked for the GM dealership the shop was the money
maker, dealers bought franchises so that they could sell a product that was
going to need to be serviced. Oldsmobile warranty work was our most
frequent customer by a huge percentage and yes dealerships are credited for
the warranty work that they perform. Warranty work is an easy sale, the
customer does not have to authorize the work therefore warranty work is a
major income segment in the service department. There is a problem with
that however, warranty work was/is often troublesome to diagnose and does
not return as much profit as does regular non warranty repair work.
Absolutely the best most profitable work is routine maintence work. There
is no lost time in diagnosis and typically the customer knows what he needs
to have done before he gets there. You do not have to call him back to tell
him what it will cost and get authorization to perform the work. The
Japanese auto makers seem to have recognise these facts and reliability is
probably why Toyota has become one of the Big 3.

Leon wrote:


I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston the
ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's than you
see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.

Tundras sell very, very well in New England, as well.

I thought this was funny...

Back in 2005, I shopped for a new truck. Smaller trucks, with a minimum
6' bed, 4WD, and "1-1/2" cabs fit my personal needs best. If I could
get it, I'd love a longer bed, but none are available in the US. I test
drove Rangers, Tacomas, Frontiers, Canyons, chose the best truck for me
and bought it.

About 9 months after I bought my truck, I noticed that Dodge Dakotas
were still made! I had totally forgotten that Dodge made a smaller
truck. G I drive by a large Dodge dealer several times daily, but
the front yard was always lined with Hemi-Rams and Magnums!

I doubt the Dakota would have changed my final results, but I thought it
silly that a serious truck buyer wasn't aware the truck existed. What a
marketing plan...

dpb wrote:


I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

The real work trucks in my area are Sprinter vans and 14' light box
trucks. G

Leon wrote:
....
That is not entirely ture. ...

But it is...it'll take tens of years before a slight outselling of the
Big 3 (and I still don't think they're outselling them in full-size
truck market--they simply don't have the model numbers available to do
so) will even come close to catching up to the volume on the road.

The dynamics aren't the same as for the automobile end at all.

As for the smaller market dynamics (which I am in, thankfully), there's
a little bit of truth there, but there has been a Toyota dealer as well
for quite a lot of time (as noted, it's also the Chevy dealership).

The fact is, the demand here for work trucks is for hard-working work
trucks (which is what I've focused on as that seemed to be the area of
interest I thought until the sidelight of the SUV came up) and the lower
payload, no better or worse mileage ratings and particularly the
no-diesel option really limits the "likeability" of the Tundra for that
market. They sell a decent number all pimped out for the hunters and
the in-town folks who want a car that can carry something, but that's a
different market. I still expect that that's the major market in
Houston you're seeing as well--most of them will be traded in and still
not have a scratch in the bed.

On the reliability of the Big 3, it's much like much of the other
reporting these days. There was a period of some serious problems and
that has now become legend and is reported as though nothing has changed
since the mid-70s. The difficulty of regaining a lost reputation is
legend in any arena and is no different for the automakers than an
individual. They're just not getting any favors and imo much undeserved
bad press and continued bashing from general folks who just do so
because it's "the in thing" rather than real knowledge/experience.

You have experience, but even much of your anecdotes are somewhat dated
and not directly reflective of current state of affairs.

The Chevy shop here is generally half empty these days--there just
aren't enough vehicles to repair, warranty or otherwise. I have a
Chrysler 300 as well as the GM products and the Chrysler/Dodge dealer is
probably the largest in town (owing in large part to the popularity of
the Ram) and yet it's not difficult to get in to their service area,
either, even though they've not added personnel for years and their
sales have mushroomed.

--


--
--

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:58:35 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:



I doubt the Dakota would have changed my final results, but I thought it
silly that a serious truck buyer wasn't aware the truck existed. What a
marketing plan...


I doubt it would have. I had a '98 Dakota extended cab with V-6,
really liked it, but found myself needing the bigger back seat and
somewhat more tow capacity. Looked at a new Dakota with a full crew
cab, but found that in order to get the tow capacity I needed, I would
have to go to a V-8 and have dismal MPG, both in town and highway. So
looked at all those you mentioned, ended up with a '07 Tacoma, best
fuel efficiency and tow capacity in the class (for a V-6). That was
when gas was $2.50 or so. Sure glad I chose what I did.

But you're right, Dakotas get very few ad dollars. May go back to the
time when they truly had a monopoly in that size range. And the
Dakota had no service issues the whole time I owned it just over eight
years. It was a good truck. Sold it to a friend and he is very
satisfied also, still no major maintenance. Too bad they didn't keep
up with what was predictably going to be a hot spot, that is MPG.

Frank

Leon wrote:
....
Well, in defense of the new Tundra, time will tell.

Clearly...

I'm not saying they're a _bad_ truck, just pricey and have some
drawbacks as well as strong points (as does every other one)...

--

On Aug 23, 8:55 am, dpb wrote:

The thing is, this is more perception than reality.

Not in the specific case of the Titan to which I was referring. The
travails of the Titan have been well documented, and they have finally
given up on trying to fix them.

http://tinyurl.com/6lajrr

Much more than an economic move, a small amount of research will
reveal that assembly problems, rear end problems, and overall quality
control problems contributed to this move. Since this is just idle
conversation between all of us, I didn't dig around for the specifics
that were cited by Nissan, but the gist was that they still wanted to
be in the truck market, but were abandoning their own efforts due to
the fact they simply couldn't get it right.

Perhaps this is why:

http://tinyurl.com/4smh9u

Pretty ugly scores for a truck that has been in manufacture for some
time now, certainly long enough to get the kinks out of design and
manufacture.

Interesting too, is that not only will the Titan be built along side
the Dodge trucks, but they will drop their own engineering and design
for the structure/frame, power train, engine, and finish options.
However, Nissan assures it loyal few that "above the frame" it will be
Nissan engineered.

Unless you use the truck as a car office and do mostly office work as
crew chief or similar, the truck is a "get you there" to go _to_ the job
along w/ the stuff required to do the job. If it is that kind of use,
perhaps amenities are worth the premium; they're surely not for me.
My truck has to do it all. It has to function as an office when I am
paying my guys, and a comfortable venue for negotiation with
subcontractors. I write and negotiate with subs on the spot as needed
in the air conditioned comfort of the truck.

It has to look nice enough to drive to the house of a client, nice
enough for them to believe they are getting someone that is successful
at what they do. As for the amenities, you got me. I like air
conditioning. After working in our South Texas heat for several hours
or a day, it is nice to get in the truck and crank it up.

The truck has to take me and my tools to the job as I am a hands on
guy most of the time. It hauls shingles, plywood, paint, lumber, job
site debris, compressors, large tools, smelly/sweaty men (including
me!) as needed.

But it needs to cast the appearance of some level of success when I
drive up to a potential client's home, beyond one of that appearance
being cast by a 20 year old truck that is "dependable".
My personal sales persona is not that of the humble craftsman that is
grateful to have work.

It comes back to is it a "real" work truck or a car that has some
carrying capacity?

OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all
day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back
seats.

I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton
with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a
rhino with that thing.

#2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual
transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded
onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat,
short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool
boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.

You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the
tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same
time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the
interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped
cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.

The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I
didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as
my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did
everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.

Those were the days.

Robert

On Aug 23, 9:20 am, "Leon" wrote:
OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL

Pretty funny. I missed it in the post.

Seriously though, how much gear do you carry in your truck to get that
kind of mileage?

Robert

wrote

OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all
day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back
seats.

I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton
with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a
rhino with that thing.

#2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual
transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded
onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat,
short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool
boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.

You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the
tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same
time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the
interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped
cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.

The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I
didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as
my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did
everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.

Those were the days.


Let me wipe a tear from my eye when talking about the good ole trucks that
earned their keep and built america.

Where I grew up, we had a lot of poor farmers and loggers. What we used to
do with all kinds of old trucks was to cut of the body and shorten the
frame. Put on some big tires, maybe a winch and make ourselves a home made
tractor. One of the primary functions of this home made tractor was to pull
out our regular tractor when it got into trouble.

Many of them were pretty funky in appearance. We welded on a seat from an
old horse drawn wagon onto ours. Big metal leaf spring type affair with a
seat that had holes to drain the rain water. Our neighbor just had a big
chink of wood for his seat.

Nothing fancy. No cab, no air conditioning. no seats, etc. Often we put
some pig iron or other weights on it. Quick and dirty to build. But these
things saved our asses and other equipment again and again. And one of the
reason why we could get away with it was because we were building it out of
something that was quite substantial to begin with.

I can't imagine building anything like this out of the contemporary, pretty
boys trucks.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 23, 9:20 am, "Leon" wrote:
OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL

Pretty funny. I missed it in the post.

Seriously though, how much gear do you carry in your truck to get that
kind of mileage?


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

Robert

In article 3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
,
says...
On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a
look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut?
;-)

--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article 3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
,
says...
On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage
from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a
look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut?
;-)


Uh no, it did not come with that walnut. ;~)

Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp
and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media"
has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine
will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning
premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less
than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels
tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.

B A R R Y wrote:
Leon wrote:


Toyota now has the Tundra looking SUV but if you want smaller the
Pathfinder should fill the bill.

They also make the 4Runner, based on the Tacoma.

Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
again.

What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
truck frames. Go figure ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news

Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
again.


You will probably be happy with that vehicle. My neighbor bouught
essentially the same thing 2 years ago but the GMC version. I have no
problems with these vehicles as far as comfort are concerned, they have full
and comfortabhle back seats unlike the truck extend cabs and their doors
fasten securely unlike the truck extended cabs the Gm is currently making.




What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
truck frames. Go figure ...

I noticed the same thing, I was considering down sizing until I noticed that
the gas mileage was not that great of savings. Very often the smaller
vehicles are simply under powered by compairison to the larger vehicles with
the stronger engines. Small engines do use less fuel unless they have to
strain more to perform like you want. I had an 87 Isuzu Trooper with a 140
hp 4 cyl engine that got 14 in town, 20 on the highway. I replaced it with
a 97 Chevy extended cab with a 230 hp 5.0 liter engine, it got 13-14 in
town and 20 on the highway. My 07 Tundra 4 door with 381 hp 5.7 gets 15+ in
town and 20 on the highway. Although each new vehicle got larger and had
more considerably more hp gas mileage pretty much stayed the same and or
improved. I'm sure later technology has a lot to do with this but having
enough power is also a factor.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news

Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
again.


BTY the hood switch is probably a plunge type switch that simply needs to be
adjusted, open the hood, locate the switch, and manually press it in while
some one else verifies if the warning goes away. If that works you can
probably very easily adjust it, if they are still using the older style
switch you simply pull it out further as the adjustment is a friction fit.
This might save you a trip back to the dealer to get rid of the annoyance.

Leon wrote:

Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp
and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media"
has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine
will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning
premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less
than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels
tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.


The big V8 in a comparably laid-out Tundra gets within 1 MPG of my V6
_Tacoma_!

My Tacoma is also cheaper per mile on Premium than Regular gas. My
manual recommends Premium fuel.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:58:31 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news

Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
again.


You will probably be happy with that vehicle. My neighbor bouught
essentially the same thing 2 years ago but the GMC version. I have no
problems with these vehicles as far as comfort are concerned, they have full
and comfortabhle back seats unlike the truck extend cabs and their doors
fasten securely unlike the truck extended cabs the Gm is currently making.




What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
truck frames. Go figure ...

I noticed the same thing, I was considering down sizing until I noticed that
the gas mileage was not that great of savings. Very often the smaller
vehicles are simply under powered by compairison to the larger vehicles with
the stronger engines. Small engines do use less fuel unless they have to
strain more to perform like you want. I had an 87 Isuzu Trooper with a 140
hp 4 cyl engine that got 14 in town, 20 on the highway. I replaced it with
a 97 Chevy extended cab with a 230 hp 5.0 liter engine, it got 13-14 in
town and 20 on the highway. My 07 Tundra 4 door with 381 hp 5.7 gets 15+ in
town and 20 on the highway. Although each new vehicle got larger and had
more considerably more hp gas mileage pretty much stayed the same and or
improved.


I'm sure later technology has a lot to do with this but having
enough power is also a factor.



Without a doubt on the technology. Comparing ten/twenty year old
vehicles with what is offered today is not relevant.

As an example, my '07 Tacoma, double cab, 2WD, Auto, V6, regular fuel,
which is a relevant comparison gets 19.5 around town and 22.5 on the
highway. No estimates here, I've kept nearly two years of data in a
spreadsheet, throwing out only those tanks used for towing (about 14
mpg depending on hills). So the manufacturers are using technology to
get better MPG across the board with regard to vehicle size.

As an example, I had a 1970 volkswagen beetle. As I recall it only
got 23 MPG and it was a U. S. mileage leader. Next car was a 73 Monte
Carlo with a 454. I don't want to talk about its MPG, brings back
nightmares.

Frank

krw writes:
In article 3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
,
says...
On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.

('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)

scot

On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
krw writes:
In article 3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
,
says...
On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.

('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)

scot

Drop the tailgate and gain about 1/2 MPG. I used a tailgate net for
years in my Dodge pick-up. It worked nicely to save the odd gallon
here and there. I bought that truck with 32,000 on it and sold it just
before it turned 200,000. The only out-of-usual replacement in that
time was the water pump. A friend told me he'd seen it the other day,
about 4-1/2 years after I sold it, with new ladder racks installed.
Slant 6 auto, so it may well last forever.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:58:31 -0500, "Leon"



Without a doubt on the technology. Comparing ten/twenty year old
vehicles with what is offered today is not relevant.

As an example, my '07 Tacoma, double cab, 2WD, Auto, V6, regular fuel,
which is a relevant comparison gets 19.5 around town and 22.5 on the
highway. No estimates here, I've kept nearly two years of data in a
spreadsheet, throwing out only those tanks used for towing (about 14
mpg depending on hills). So the manufacturers are using technology to
get better MPG across the board with regard to vehicle size.

As an example, I had a 1970 volkswagen beetle. As I recall it only
got 23 MPG and it was a U. S. mileage leader. Next car was a 73 Monte
Carlo with a 454. I don't want to talk about its MPG, brings back
nightmares.

Frank

With out a doubt fuel injection has been the big help followed by the
computer controlling everything. Computers have been on GM cars since 1980
IIRC and were used with carbureted engines, not such a good combination.
Once the carb was tossed the mileage improved dramatically. My dad's loaded
V6 Olds 98 got 32 mpg on the highway all day long. That was really pretty
darn good even by today's standards. My wife drives a loaded 2004 Accord
and gets no better with a 4 cyl engine. Smaller engines are pretty hard to
beat for in town driving but the bigger engines tend to be more efficient on
the highway when comparing the cubic inch increase to mileage decrease. I'm
only getting 10% less miles per gallon on the highway compared to your 07
Tacoma but in town your Tacoma kicks butt.

BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific
purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381
hp and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the
"media" has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if
the engine will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage
when burning premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as
premium is less than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I
buy. Premium fuels tend to also have better/more additives to keep the
engine running clean.


The big V8 in a comparably laid-out Tundra gets within 1 MPG of my V6
_Tacoma_!


My Tacoma is also cheaper per mile on Premium than Regular gas. My manual
recommends Premium fuel.

Uh huh, thanks to the on board computer, knock sensor and electronic timing
advance. Premium used with standard ignition vehicles was not much of a
help back in the late 70's and or early 80's unless the vehicle specifically
required it. Because premium fuel is less likely to create engine knock
than regular fuel the computer will advance ignition timing until it hears
engine knock/valve clatter through the knock sensor. With electronically
advanced ignition timing you normally should get better performance and gas
mileage when burning premium.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
krw writes:
In article 3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
,
says...
On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage
from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.

('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)

scot

By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter
and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage
could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an
85 or lower rating.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:01:38 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific
purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)


LOL, yep could very well be. I guess I made the decision partially
based on MPG and just wanted reassurance that it was the right one.

Frank