The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,

says...


They myth of the Toyota has been blown up in recent years.

What "myth"?

---------------------------------------------

The only serious issue and controversy surrounding Toyota in recent
years was a problem they had with certain pickups, mostly sold and
used in the northeast. There was a design flaw that resulted in
premature rotting of a cross member in the frame. Initially Toyota
screwed up by denying there was a problem but ultimately they stepped
up to the plate and replaced the affected frame sections on *all* the
trucks, even if well out of warranty. In some cases, they actually
bought the truck back and gave the owner a new one.

I have a friend who had one of the affected trucks. He liked it a lot
but due to his experiences in getting it fixed, he bought a Ford F-150
instead.

Toyota had a huge recall recently for "unintended acceleration."
Whatever the merits of it, it was probably the biggest "controversy"
about cars this century.
Additionally, "Toyota settled a class-action engine-sludge suit in 2007
that covered an estimated 2.5-million Toyota and Lexus vehicles made
between 1997 and 2002."
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2...lack-death-of-
sludge/index.htm
I also recall that an often lauded Toyota 6 cyl engine was well known to
mechanics for head gasket failure. That was a straight 6 as I remember,
and predates the more recent Toyota 3.0 V6 head gasket problems.
So yes, there is an element of "myth" surrounding Toyota quality.
Simply googling for Toyota problems will show Toyota is far from
perfect. But they sell a lot of cars.
So it doesn't mean they don't make excellent cars, as their sales prove.
Their biggest advantage is that they are more ethical than most other
car makers, and take better care of their customers when mistakes are
made. Customer loyalty keeps them on top. No myth there.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:50:59 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Their biggest advantage is that they are more ethical than most other
car makers, and take better care of their customers when mistakes are
made. Customer loyalty keeps them on top. No myth there.

====

Absolutely right abut that. When a flaw is discovered you frequently
end up with a life time warranty on that particular part. I dn't know
of anyone else who does that.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:41:24 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



http://tinyurl.com/cwydck5



More proof that Consumer Reports is a useless rag.

Bert, check out the last few issues of Road and Track. They love the Tesla.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:20:04 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:41:24 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



http://tinyurl.com/cwydck5



More proof that Consumer Reports is a useless rag.

Bert, check out the last few issues of Road and Track. They love the Tesla.

For 90 grand, it ought to be pretty nice.

There are many, many $90k cars out there that don't have the technical
advances, reliability, etc. of cars a LOT cheaper. "it showed us that
the silent, electron-powered future could actually work-and quickly, at
that."

The only thing R&T didn't like about it was the door handles!

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

True North wrote:
Four years with the RAV4 and I can't remember a single problem that I had to take it in for...other than scheduled semi-annual oil changes and 2 safety recalls.
Sure hope my new Highlander is as reliable.
Seven weeks and I have almost 2000 kilometers on the odometer.
Semi-annual oil changes? You either don't drive much or you don't take
care of your cars.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

I religiously follow the maintenance schedule..even having the service dept fill out and sign the book in addition to filing my receipts in my cabinet.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:20:04 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:41:24 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



http://tinyurl.com/cwydck5



More proof that Consumer Reports is a useless rag.

Bert, check out the last few issues of Road and Track. They love the Tesla.

For 90 grand, it ought to be pretty nice.

There are many, many $90k cars out there that don't have the technical
advances, reliability, etc. of cars a LOT cheaper. "it showed us that
the silent, electron-powered future could actually work-and quickly, at
that."

The only thing R&T didn't like about it was the door handles!

How about the problem with lack of "refueling stations"?

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:20:04 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:41:24 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



http://tinyurl.com/cwydck5



More proof that Consumer Reports is a useless rag.

Bert, check out the last few issues of Road and Track. They love the Tesla.

For 90 grand, it ought to be pretty nice.

There are many, many $90k cars out there that don't have the technical
advances, reliability, etc. of cars a LOT cheaper. "it showed us that
the silent, electron-powered future could actually work-and quickly, at
that."

The only thing R&T didn't like about it was the door handles!

How about the problem with lack of "refueling stations"?

They probably said the same thing to Henry Ford. Look, we get it,
FOXites are afraid of technology.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On 5/18/13 6:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:19:12 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...


The only thing R&T didn't like about it was the door handles!

How about the problem with lack of "refueling stations"?

Ant the fact that it takes over an hour to "refuel" (every 150-180
miles)
The 450 mile trip from DC to Boston required 2 recharges, starting
with a full charge.



No onboard nuclear fueled steam turbine to generate 'lectricity?

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article , says...

On 5/18/13 6:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:19:12 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...


The only thing R&T didn't like about it was the door handles!

How about the problem with lack of "refueling stations"?

Ant the fact that it takes over an hour to "refuel" (every 150-180
miles)
The 450 mile trip from DC to Boston required 2 recharges, starting
with a full charge.



No onboard nuclear fueled steam turbine to generate 'lectricity?

That's technology and they don't like technology. Rub two sticks
together to start a fire is about as technical as they want to get it
seems.