Forum Discussion
ol' grouch wrote:Lessmore wrote:4X4Dodger wrote:
Consider this OP. I have lived in countries like Sierra Leone, Egypt, Cambodia, and other developing world glamour spots. Toyotas have for years been the ONE vehicle that can stand up to the roads and abuse of overloading that peoples of the third world put on their vehicles. And last for 20+ years.
A typical Chevy will last about 6 months to a year before it rattles itself to pieces. US embassies overseas have a much harder time selling off their used American cars than the Japanese embassies. Or the other embassies who generally are buying Toyotas or Land Rovers because they dont make their own cars.
In Africa when I first went there there were only two cars that generally lasted for any length of time one was the old Puegot 505 diesel ( a great car by the way) and Toyotas. These were the only old cars you ever saw.
Get over your economic jingoism...many fine products are made overseas that rival or exceed our own in quality and workmanship.
I've had Toyota...early '70's and 2007. Both bought new. I've experienced ownership and day to day experience.
My view, developed by years of ownership and experience is that Toyota is not any better than domestic vehicles and in some instances worse....and in some instances better.
They (all vehicles, all manufacturers) are all inanimate vehicles, made to cost, market demands, subject to the vagaries of using in many cases the same suppliers...who may provide good parts or may not be good. Suppliers, used by many different manufacturers, may provide parts that are not satisfactory and may be used for years by different manufacturers all the while causing issues. One springs to mind..the airbag issue, now causing issues for consumers and a host of manufacturers, including Toyota, Honda and Ford...to name some.
Check out the Toyota recalls or for that matter any manufacturer's recalls. They're huge in just about any maker you care to name.
In the end, there is far too much brand loyalism that goes on among consumers that excuses flaws. If you have a GM, Ford Ram, Toyota, Honda-Acura, Jeep, etc....they're all just vehicles...an assemblage of components...some very good, some satisfactory....some marginal parts.
We expect a lot of our vehicles and subject them to demanding conditions and unrelenting service, oft times with indifferent maintenance. For the most part, nowadays most manufacturer, including Toyota, but not just Toyota....make vehicles that provide yeoman service under difficult conditions. But through experience, I have not found one maker, 'better' than another maker's vehicles. Nowadays, any new vehicle you buy is generally good.
It wasn't always that way.
The cheapest, lowest quality car built today is still better than the best car built 30 years ago. Early Toyotas had rust issues as theywere built to Japanese standards where cars are retired at 65,000 miles. In the U.S., with long term ownership, longer roads, and rock salt on the roads, early units rusted out fast. American cars did too, just not as fast. Increasing quality control has improved metalurgy over the years. A 1950's car would need a timng chain around 60,000 miles. Now, they go 120,000 or more before needing replacement. I ran a salvage yard in the early 80's and we got a lot of 5-8 year old Toyotas and Hondas that were real rust buggies. They ran great, the bodies just fell apart.
My 2 year old Toyota Corolla ('73, bought new in May 1973) rusted through the body in numerous places. Within 5 years we gave up trying to patch the body together and it was assigned it's final fate....as a field car on the family farm in Western Canada. It would take out lunches, water, tools, etc. to the those of us driving the combine or the grain trucks.
Our '76 Impala (bought new Dec. '75) from the same era...was still pulling our trailer, used as a regular family car till July, '97. At that time, it's body rusted out. But look at the difference in years between the '76 Impala and Toyota from new to rust out....and years of service.
No comparison.
