Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL

#1

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:28:06 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you
which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of
the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The Tundra
clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually NEED
trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear
demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really do
much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final
statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than the
competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the
start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be
interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 feet
shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained
during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually correct
it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something that
was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road
Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping
distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A
similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver 2007
pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge 1500 -
196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet.
So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional
brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag race
your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck.

Ed

Anyone who bases an automotive purchase decision on television
advertisements instead of independant, unbiased performance reviews
deserves whatever they get.
--
Ray Sirois
SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS
http://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6080
telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6023

#2

"Raymond Sirois" <nomail (AT) nomail (DOT) no.way> wrote

Quote:

Anyone who bases an automotive purchase decision on television
advertisements instead of independant, unbiased performance reviews
deserves whatever they get.
--
Ray Sirois

So you think advertising doesn't work? Seems like millions of dollars
are being wasted if that is the case.

And where do I get these "unbiased performance reviews?" All Human
being have biases (no matter what they claim).

Ed

#3

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:30:02 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3 (AT) removemindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Raymond Sirois" <nomail (AT) nomail (DOT) no.way> wrote in message
news:sgcm03h1jpc3uj52p1s1gskd886tj531mk (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Anyone who bases an automotive purchase decision on television
advertisements instead of independant, unbiased performance reviews
deserves whatever they get.
--
Ray Sirois

So you think advertising doesn't work? Seems like millions of dollars
are being wasted if that is the case.

Advertising works great. That's why all those multi-billion dollar ad
agencies are thriving. HOWEVER, anyone who equates advertising with
accurate and unbiased information is a fool.

Quote:

And where do I get these "unbiased performance reviews?" All Human
being have biases (no matter what they claim).

Ed

Well, suffice it to say that there are plenty of car enthusiast
publications available that provide relatively unbiased performance
statistics for a whole slew of cars each year. These statistics are
obtained through standard testing procedures so that a reasonably
accurate comparison of model to model can be made. On top of that,
these testers provide subjective comparisons. I'd sure as hell take
the word of a tester from Car and Driver over the word of an ad agency
from Madison Avenue...

--
Ray Sirois
SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS
http://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6080
telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6023

#4

"Raymond Sirois" <nomail (AT) nomail (DOT) no.way> wrote

Quote:

And where do I get these "unbiased performance reviews?" All Human
being have biases (no matter what they claim).

Ed

Well, suffice it to say that there are plenty of car enthusiast
publications available that provide relatively unbiased performance
statistics for a whole slew of cars each year. These statistics are
obtained through standard testing procedures so that a reasonably
accurate comparison of model to model can be made. On top of that,
these testers provide subjective comparisons. I'd sure as hell take
the word of a tester from Car and Driver over the word of an ad
agency
from Madison Avenue...

Ignoring whether or not the editors of magazines like Car and Driver
are biased, look at their test methods - do they use the same tracks
for all their tests - no, they use a variety of tracks under varying
weather conditions. Do they purchase their own vehicles -no, they rely
on freebies from the manufacturers. Do they have an incentive to not
piss off the people who by ads in their magazines - yes. Do you think
you can really trust C&D et al to be fair and unbiased?

The situation with Consumer Reports is somewhat better. They do
purchase their own vehicles and they do have their own test track, so
at least that is consistent (but the test weather isn't and no attempt
is made to correct for temperature/humidity variations). CR doesn't
have advertising, but they do have to satisfy their readers, so they
to have to be careful who they piss off. CR editors also have very
clear biases. I trust CR's test track data (to a point), but take
their recommendations with a grain of salt. Their reliability data is
about as good as what you can cull from a newsgroup. It is
interesting, but not well collected data.

Ed

#5

To address the point, OHV is not the same referance as OHC. One can NOT
build an OHC engine that does NOT have an OHVs. ALL OHC engines regardless
of how many cams, by definition have overhead valves. As apposed to the old
flat head engines that had BOTH the cam and the vales in the block. One can
however build an OHV engine that does NOT have an OHC. The original OHV
engines had the cam in the block and used push rods to activate the valves
via the rocker arms.

mike

"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_ (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"Kevin" <ksmabon (AT) mts (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Yc6Qh.9819$YJ4.3818 (AT) newsfe23 (DOT) lga...
DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft placement
and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and 4 valve
engines
that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I don't
understand, if I were you

I wouldn't be pretentious about my understanding if I were you.

My mistake came from reading Ford's erroneous web page.
It's right there on the 4.6 L 24V V8 for the Mustang GT model. Clearly
says
OHV.

If you want to get on a highhorse about understanding, go make your gripes
to those responsible for the error on the web page.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL

Cars (General) General Cars Discussions (alt.autos)

Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL - 03-28-2007 , 10:29 PM

Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL - 03-29-2007 , 09:30 AM

Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL - 03-29-2007 , 10:22 PM

Unbiased Performace Reviews (was: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL) - 04-02-2007 , 06:23 AM

Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL - 04-02-2007 , 06:52 PM