"Toyota: It's Getting Even Worse"

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Axe

Whats more likely to still be on the road in 2020 - a 2002 Toyota or a 2002 Chrysler product?

I agree Toyota is basically screwed, and they made their own bed, but are there people who actually think 80s-90s GM products were more reliable then Toyotas? I think Captain Obvious needs to have a talk with all the nutswingers on this, and other similiar sites. Im thrilled that GM and Ford (Chrysler deserves to go out of business) are finally, for the first time ever - making relevant vehicles that people want, and apparently even decided to throw quality into the mix too...but 2 of the big 3 needed taxpayer bailouts after decade after decade of making crap...oh, but thats right, Toyotas and Hondas were never reliable, right? I love my Camaro, but Im not one of those close-minded fanboy types.

I'd say the Chrysler. Why I know of plenty of 20 and 30 year old (and even older) Chryslers on the road, you are a prime example of what's wrong with America, you have bit right into the "Toyota Quality" BS. I would easily drive either of the big 3s cars and easily expect reliability. My 07 Patriot runs great, it has 40k miles, but has not led the easiest life (lots of offroad, mudding, hunting, hauling hay, dogs, groceries, 50 mile 1 way drive to work, etc, etc). I would esily buy a Ford, Dodge or Chevy over a Toyota if "getting their hands dirty" was a requirement.

[wylde1]

EVERY manufacturer has their problems. The stats show though, that there are more older japanese cars still on the road than domestics. I had an old 91 civic with 400,000 kms on it that still ran like a champ.

if i'm buying a truck, GM/chev 100%

if I'm buying a 10+ year old work beater that i just need to run forever and take as little gas/maintenance as possible. Honda/toyota every time.

That being said, the tide IS changing. Chev and even Ford have woken up and begun to put an emphasis on quality and building the cars people want. My first ever brand new vehicle is the 2010 camaro and I wouldn't have it any other way. There's not a single other vehicle on the market that I'd rather have at this point in my life.

[2000v6]

Originally Posted by Axe

Whats more likely to still be on the road in 2020 - a 2002 Toyota or a 2002 Chrysler product?

I agree Toyota is basically screwed, and they made their own bed, but are there people who actually think 80s-90s GM products were more reliable then Toyotas? I think Captain Obvious needs to have a talk with all the nutswingers on this, and other similiar sites. Im thrilled that GM and Ford (Chrysler deserves to go out of business) are finally, for the first time ever - making relevant vehicles that people want, and apparently even decided to throw quality into the mix too...but 2 of the big 3 needed taxpayer bailouts after decade after decade of making crap...oh, but thats right, Toyotas and Hondas were never reliable, right? I love my Camaro, but Im not one of those close-minded fanboy types.

I'd say go f*** toyota, chrysler will die out and it will be the big 2 and the big 3 germans.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Don't get me started on who's fault it was that they finally asked for LOANS.
Suffice to say you're very......off-base in your assumptions.

It's more than just "loans". They were allowed to go bankrupt with the shareholders, bondholders and major creditors of the company getting squat.

100% of the assets deemed valuable were legally (and I use that word loosely) moved over to a new company owned by the governments and unions. There was absolutely nothing the bondholders and creditors could do. Now you tell me one other bankruptcy case where this was allowed to happen.

If I tried to do the exact same thing with one of my companies, I would probably be charged with some kind of corporate wrong-doing.

[DGthe3]

If I remember correctly, you were one of the advocates for bankruptcy

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If I remember correctly, you were one of the advocates for bankruptcy

Yes I was because the company simply did not have the cashflow to keep up with the massive debt it had. I just didn't expect those who were legally entitled to the assets (as in most bankruptcy proceedings) to get nothing.

In some cases, we are talking about peoples retirement savings. These were conservative investors who purchased bonds because they were seen as low risk. They could have at least given them .50 cents on the dollar.

If the governments make off like bandits on the sale of the company then I think "old GM" bond holders and creditors were totally ripped off.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Hylton

It's more than just "loans". They were allowed to go bankrupt with the shareholders, bondholders and major creditors of the company getting squat.

I never limited my sentence to just the loans.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by a_Username

The Ex-NHTSA comment really surprised me. Toyota is the only automaker that has these VERY INFLUENTIAL people by their side? Some fishy stuff going on here.

What's the attraction to working for Government, besides extraordinary pensions, pay, and Health Care, and a certain potential "influence"?

When you leave, as a former "insider", all manner of Lobbying/Legal/"Commercial" folks WANT YOU!!

Including the Detroit 3...

Including ex-NHTSA/IRS/FBI/Customs/Trade/Treasury/Forces people...

THAT'S the "key" fringe benefit...

Just imagine what "good" Geitner's done, and how much he'll "do" when he leaves...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

What's the attraction to working for Government, besides extraordinary pensions, pay, and Health Care, and a certain potential "influence"?

When you leave, as a former "insider", all manner of Lobbying/Legal/"Commercial" folks WANT YOU!!

Including the Detroit 3...

Including ex-NHTSA/IRS/FBI/Customs/Trade/Treasury/Forces people...

THAT'S the "key" fringe benefit...

Just imagine what "good" Geitner's done, and how much he'll "do" when he leaves...

If you didn't notice, the article mentions that the "Detroit 3" doesn't have ex-NHTSA officials working for them.

[HeatherR]

[QUOTE=a_Username;1598468]If you didn't notice, the article mentions that the "Detroit 3" doesn't have ex-NHTSA officials working for them.[/QU

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by a_Username

If you didn't notice, the article mentions that the "Detroit 3" doesn't have ex-NHTSA officials working for them.

lol pwnd.

[Rallysport]

Originally Posted by a_Username

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ven-worse.aspx



The Ex-NHTSA comment really surprised me. Toyota is the only automaker that has these VERY INFLUENTIAL people by their side? Some fishy stuff going on here.

This is typical toyota, crooks trying to hide wrongdoings. Article said toyota has lost an "estimated" 100,000 car sales. I wish they wouldn't be able to sell another car PERIOD. Go away, toyota, and take that scum-bag bunch at progressive insurance and their airhead shill with you.

[2000v6]

Originally Posted by Rallysport

This is typical toyota, crooks trying to hide wrongdoings. Article said toyota has lost an "estimated" 100,000 car sales. I wish they wouldn't be able to sell another car PERIOD. Go away, toyota, and take that scum-bag bunch at progressive insurance and their airhead shill with you.

Couldn't agree with you more. You seem to have taken the words right out of my mouth. Anybody who knows about a problem that has led to death and possibly an innocent man being sent to jail and then tries to cover it up is pathetic. Even though, I hate honda/nissan/hyundai/suzuki, at least they don't cover up their mistakes and try to blame someone else

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by a_Username

If you didn't notice, the article mentions that the "Detroit 3" doesn't have ex-NHTSA officials working for them.

And, of course, that's an undeniable "truth"? Because it's posted on the 'net?!

You can bet your 2SS there's ex-Gov't officials in a Lobbyists' offices or some other "places of influence", working on behalf of the Detroit 3...GUARANTEED!

It's simply "the way the world works..."