JR_FXLR wrote:
My Blazer's A/C quit for the second time this year. Shop said new compressor
and misc parts are needed... $800. This is after $300 worth of brakes and
$200 worth of shocks last month. Time to trade her in.

I picked up a kick-ass new truck Wed. 2005 Toyota Tundra. This thing is
awesome. I drove the Ram 1500, the F150, and the Nissan Titan- all 4 door
8-cyl. If the dodge sales guy would have pushed a bit harder I probably
would be driving one now- it was the second I drove after the Ford and I
really did like it- until I took the Tundra out.

Oh yeah... this is on topic. I'm gonna pull my boat with it! (Came with
classIV hitch, brake controller, tow package)

JR


I almost bought a 2004 Tundra regular cab, 6 cylinder auto to pull my
boat. The dealer used it as a parts pickup & delivery vehicle. They
wanted $21,500.00 CDN for it, plus wanted to charge me the usual fees
and delivery charges attached to a new vehicle. It only had 12500 km
but the front tires were already noticeably wearing on the shoulders.
I'm betting a lot of short quick trips were made over it's year of service.
I wrestled with the decision, but realized it wasn't the right vehicle
to share with my youngest son, a 23 year old who just graduated from
university this month.
BTW...Consumers Report has rated it the best full size pickup a couple
of years in a row.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
JR_FXLR wrote:
My Blazer's A/C quit for the second time this year. Shop said new
compressor and misc parts are needed... $800. This is after $300 worth of
brakes and $200 worth of shocks last month. Time to trade her in.

I picked up a kick-ass new truck Wed. 2005 Toyota Tundra. This thing is
awesome. I drove the Ram 1500, the F150, and the Nissan Titan- all 4 door
8-cyl. If the dodge sales guy would have pushed a bit harder I probably
would be driving one now- it was the second I drove after the Ford and I
really did like it- until I took the Tundra out.

Oh yeah... this is on topic. I'm gonna pull my boat with it! (Came with
classIV hitch, brake controller, tow package)

JR
I almost bought a 2004 Tundra regular cab, 6 cylinder auto to pull my
boat. The dealer used it as a parts pickup & delivery vehicle. They wanted
$21,500.00 CDN for it, plus wanted to charge me the usual fees and
delivery charges attached to a new vehicle. It only had 12500 km but the
front tires were already noticeably wearing on the shoulders. I'm betting
a lot of short quick trips were made over it's year of service.
I wrestled with the decision, but realized it wasn't the right vehicle to
share with my youngest son, a 23 year old who just graduated from
university this month.
BTW...Consumers Report has rated it the best full size pickup a couple of
years in a row.

Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.

Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call
you for advice.....not!

"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call you
for advice.....not!

The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call
you for advice.....not!

The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.



I tend to give credibility to the Consumer Report tests.

Exactly what do you not agree with their testing protocol on autos and
trucks?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call
you for advice.....not!

The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.



I tend to give credibility to the Consumer Report tests.

Exactly what do you not agree with their testing protocol on autos and
trucks?

The problem is that they take a new vehicle or item and test it and see how
it performs. Well, I don't just use my vehicle for the first three months or
any other items I buy.

I laugh every time I hear the name J.D. Powers! This "initial quality"
rating is useless. What about 1 year quality? What about 2 year quality?
What about 5 year quality? Most everything can be rated very good in the
first three months.

With the last vehicle I purchased I was asked by the dealer to discuss my
responses with them if I could not answer excellent on all questions so that
they could get me to the point where I could responed in the excellent
column on the initial survey. I laughed and when the survey arrived I
responded the way I truely needed to and wanted to based upon my usage and
impression.

JimH,
In college I sold stereos and major appliances in a dept. store. 100% of
those items Consumer Reports listed as being a "BEST BUY" were those items
with the highest rate of return due to defective merchandise. Since then I
have asked other retail salesmen if Consumer Reports has improved their
track record, and they tell me they haven't, and these are stores selling
the "BEST BUY" product.



"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call
you for advice.....not!

The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.



I tend to give credibility to the Consumer Report tests.

Exactly what do you not agree with their testing protocol on autos and
trucks?

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.



Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call you
for advice.....not!


The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.


So what's wrong with 'real world' testing?

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.



Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call
you for advice.....not!


The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.


So what's wrong with 'real world' testing?

"not real world testing" Read between the sips.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:42:51 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
news
Bert Robbins wrote:


Consumer Reporst can't test a wet napkin.


Thanks for your wisdom. Next time I'll forgo my subscription and call you
for advice.....not!

The tests that CR runs are now real world and their depth of testing is
cursory.

My own opinion of CR is that there is a lot of personal opinion in
their reviews. I just can't believe that they are that impartial to
give an honest opinion.

Based on my own experience, CR is 50/50 on being "right" with their
evaluations.

When it comes to vehicles, I don't even bother - they are so biased
it's ridiculous.

Later,

Tom