On Thu, 10 May 2007 23:08:16 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

If there is very little difference (between Toyota and Ford) in repair
records, then I guess Consumer Report surveys must be wrong?
Is (F)ound (O)n the (R)oad (D)ead real or a joke?

On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:39:52 -0500, SWDeveloper <nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) com>
wrote:


Have you looked at Ford's stock lately? It is in the "worst pick"
category right now. Toyota is not doing as well as expected either.
The USA is in a slowing economy. China and Germany are doing
exceptionally well, but that can (and probably will) change.

"SWDeveloper" <nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote

Right now ? Several years ago I bought some at about $ 27 and it started
dropping. Now Ford stock is about $ 8.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:48:26 GMT, "Ralph Mowery"
<rmowery28146 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:


Yes. You'd think Ford is currently a good buy, but it's future is not
certain. Personally, I'd think any vehicle manufacture would be a
good buy if they are putting out more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Gasoline at $4.50 is outrageous, so truck sales are down.

"SWDeveloper" <nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote


Wrong? Define wrong. The CR survey is what it is - a non-scientific
popularity contest. They only collect data from their own readers, and then
only the readers that wish to reply. The information they collected is based
on what the respondent think is important. They don't tell you what the
little circles really mean. Is one problem in a year on average enough to
get an average rating, or a poor rating, or a good rating? According to CR,
an 2WD F150 is around 2-5% better "average." They didn't rate a Tundra
becasue they didn't have enough replies to calculate the Predicted
Reliability Ratings. However, they still showed lots of little red circles
(excellent) on the road test page. Does this seem reasonable? They don't
have enough data to calcualte an average, but they declare the reliability
excellent. Hmmmm Poorly collected data + poorly reported data = ?

I can only go my personal experiences. My Father owned nothing but Ford
trucks for 50 years. In all that time I think the biggest single expense was
a failed clutch in a 1967 F100 (I blew it out). Last year I traded my 14
year old F150 for a Nissan Frontier. After a year with the Frontier, I wish
I could get the old F150 back. I didn't buy a current F150 because the
things are jacked up to the point that they are useless for someone that
needs to pull stuff out of the bed. I tried to buy a Tundra or a Tacoma from
Toyota, but the local dealers are a crooked bunch of lying snakes. They
quote you one price but then start piling on ridiculous charges when you try
to complete the deal. There is no way a Toyota truck is good enough to make
up for the a$%^holes that sell them. Now that they have tried to out Ford,
Ford and made the Tundra a cartoon cutout truck, I wouldn't even consider
one. The Tacoma is still a good size though. Maybe in a year or so when I am
finally fed up with the Frontier I'll try Toyota dealers further away.
Surely they can't all be crooks.

Ed

On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:46:40 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Well, maybe "wrong" could be misleading. I know that using
statistics can be a dangerous thing. The Hondas and Toyotas generally
show good reliability scores and below for Chrysler and Ford for many
years. General Motors looks about average. Assuming these ratings
were true, there is still the risk of purchasing a "lemon" no matter
which brand is selected.

When dealing with salesmen I like to say "Give me this vehicle for
$xxxxxx, out the door," with xxxxxx being the price I know the dealer
paid plus a few hundred profit. When dealing you can't be des pirate,
and resist attachment to the vehicle. If you use emotion when
buying, you lose lots of buying power. Knowing what the dealer paid
(plus kickbacks) is knowledge and buying power.