- #1257 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [jreagan]
by belias
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jreagan (Mar 02, 2007 7:02 pm)
I'm happy that you have a great vehicle! But you can't base a whole company's vehicle quality based on your sole experience. You claimed that and it is up to you to prove. I gave you evidence otherwise and for the past x-hundred posts on this forum, there has not been one source cited to support your claim. That's all I'm saying. What you choose is your business.
|
- #1258 of 2059
-
Re: Non-subjective [belias]
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:05 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 02, 2007 6:59 pm)
Show me how 6-bolt mains=stronger engine and then ask the question separately or just ask it outright. I don't know how many the Toyota has - I can't find the info. But again, show me a case where less bolts=less "strength".
Common sense, at least for an ME. Just look back over the years, the high HP engines and big blocks all had 4 bolt mains and smaller, less hp, lower perf engines used 2 bolt mains.
The crank sees ALOT of forces and the main bearings have to support these forces. The better the structure around them, the stronger the engine.
|
- #1259 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [belias]
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:07 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 02, 2007 7:04 pm)
But you can't base a whole company's vehicle quality based on your sole experience.
I sure can, why can't I? Oh, and it should have been plural..VehicleS
|
- #1260 of 2059
-
Re: Opinion is subjective [belias]
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:10 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 02, 2007 7:02 pm)
I never said hp/torque does not equal strength, I said there is MORE to it than that. Stop twisting my words please.
|
- #1261 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [jreagan]
by belias
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jreagan (Mar 02, 2007 7:07 pm)
Because it isn't based on reliable data that's why. You don't constitute a sample size and you aren't able to even show any statistically significant data showing that your reliability is better than the Tundra. You have no numbers to show, you have no data to show except for just your subjective claim. You are a current new-model owner so you are obviously biased anyway, and you are unable to prove that those with Tundra's have less reliability based on ANYTHING. So please... at least take remedial statistics before you make claims that you can't back up and aren't willing to support.
|
- #1262 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [belias]
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 02, 2007 7:12 pm)
There you go, twisting my words again. Did I say Tundras were less reliable? Show me where please, post #?? I simply stated that based on my 18 yrs of experience driving GMCs, I beleive they are VERY reliable. Did I get lucky? Maybe, but until I experience otherwise, GM's are my choice. It has nothing to do with the fact I just bought one. It is not my first one, it is my 3rd one in the last 18 yrs.
Reliable data? Show me where any stupid-a$$ magazines' data is scientific or "reliable"?
Also, consider this. Most people that have good experiences go unnoticed because they are content. People with bad experiences are PO'd and voice their opinions. So, of course you are going to hear more about the bad experiences than the good ones.
If GM's reliability is so poor, why do they still hold such a huge loyalty?
|
- #1263 of 2059
-
Let's get this straight...
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:24 pm)
-
|
Do I think the Toyota Tundra is a good truck? Yes, I do.
Do I think it is better than the GMs? NO, I don't.
Do I think the Tundra is a reliable truck? No idea, it is brand new. But based on Toyota's reputation, it should be. Keyword: Should
Do I think the GM is a reliable truck? I have NO reason to think otherwise.
Period!!!
|
- #1264 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [jreagan]
by belias
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:35 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jreagan (Mar 02, 2007 7:18 pm)
Post 1186 where you say "But what about long-term reliability and customer satisfaction? And don't tell me that their car market or the previous Tundras speak for that. They are completely different vehicles. This is a new segment for Toyota, so there is no doubt they will have a learning curve to get through. Sure, Toyota is a good automotive mfr, but they are NOT immune to all of the challenges required to get a truck to the point that GM, Ford (and even Dodge) are at in overall truck quality. Sure, they are powerful and fast, but there is way more to a truck than that.
Oh, and BTW...Does Tundra offer such ammenities such as Rain Sense Wipers and Heated washer fluid? Just curious."
You make the claim right there...and for the record CR takes good and bad responses.
|
- #1265 of 2059
-
Re: Let's get this straight... [jreagan]
by belias
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:38 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jreagan (Mar 02, 2007 7:24 pm)
Fair enough.. I have to go, but don't take these things personally -- we're not criticiaing YOUR truck... we're looking at the whole picture! Baby is crying... gotta go...
|
- #1266 of 2059
-
Re: Reply to Belias [belias]
by jreagan
-
Mar 02, 2007 (7:41 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 02, 2007 7:35 pm)
Where in that post did I say that Toyota's were less reliable? I don't see it. I was questioning it, yes. But did I say it? You cannot crown anyone or anything King until they prove it, and since the Tundra is new to the segment, therefore, they must prove it.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups 
