Wickeddoll® wrote:
There's one big difference...

A civilian *WILL NOT* put his vehicule out as a shield to protect the
other car as policemen do...

Furthermore, all the extra equipment that gets bolted in the trunk adds
to more things that could puncture the gas tank (bolts)...

As 2 Civics totalled themselves rearending my Grand Marquis (same car as
Crown Vics), without causing any kind of damage other than nasty
scratches and popping out the plastic bumper cover from its fasteners, I
don't see *why* any civilian would need a shield...

Anything hitting a Panther hard enough to have it catch fire will
totally blow anything else to bits, so I don't really see the point...

(it has to get past the steel frame, so it would take a truck, SUV or
another Panther

--
Don't drink water, fish have sex in it!

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:eurpnt.2m8.1 (AT) news (DOT) evilcabal.org...

Did I ever say you were fooled? I said "I don't think Toyota can fool
all of the people all of the time."

I never said this.

Expressing my opinion is not "trolling."

Expressing an opinion does not mean I am bitter. Sometimes I agree
with Mike Hunter, sometimes I don't. It does bother me when I see
people trash the domestic brands - particularly people who haven't
owned a domestic vehicle in decades. Between myself and my immediate
family members we have owned Domestic, Japanese, English, and German
Cars. I've personally owned 5 Japanese vehicles - 2 Nissans (280Z,
Frontier), 1 Toyota (Cressida), 2 Mazdas (626, Courier). I am not
wedded to the Domestic Car Industry, but I do feel that the opinion of
the population has been conditioned to think Toyotas are somehow far
better than other cars and I don't think this is true. If I strongly
think false impression are being promulgated do you think I should
just sit there and let it go?

It seems like you are dismissing the "anecdotal evidence" (your own
"anecdotal evidence") since you are willing to buy another Subaru.
Besides I said multiple times I would actually consider buying a
Toyota. Sounds like we have the same sort of opinion.

I've never suggested that you should keep your mouth shut.

When did I say your opinions were not valid? Opinions are opinions,
not facts. Third parties can agree with them or not. When possible I
try to provide facts to support my opinions. I can't always do that.
And sometimes I don't agree with facts provided by others.

I have never seen a Ford or GM or Dodge or Nissan or Mazda truck ad as
deliberately deceptive as the current crop of Tundra ads. There is a
clear attempt to deceive here. This is my opinion. You are certainly
free to disagree. Certainly all manufacturers run ads that emphasize
the "goodness" or their products and even cross over into gray areas
to make a point. An example of a gray area ad is the current GMC Truck
ad where they show a HD truck pulling a train. I am sure this really
happened, but I am also sure that the truck would not be able to pull
the train for long (especially if an uphill grade was involved). I
don't think anyone seeing this ad thinks that GMC trucks are suitable
locomotive replacements. On the other hand, the Toyota see-saw ad is a
blatant attempt to deceive. They don't actually lie, and they cover
themselves with type that is too small for me to read, but for the
typical Joe watching the ad, they create the impression that a Tundra
can tow a 10,000 lb trailer up a steep incline and then stop in on the
opposite incline. In fact the trailer itself only weighed around 5,000
lbs and it had electric trailer brakes, so the trailer literally
stopped itself.

You are missing the point. By allowing Toyota to dump small cars here,
the US goverment eliminated the incentive for domestic manufacturers
to build good small cars. Ford or GM or Chysler weren't going to pour
millions and millions into developing small cars that were going to
loose money.

You don't think Tundra front suspensions collapsing is a serious
problem?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ll_joints.html

Toyota consistently down played the seriousness of this problem. NHTSA
recieved numerous complaints about this problem, including reports of
injuries and a death. At first Toyota said it wasn't a problem, then
it wasn't their problem, then it was the Customer's problem, finally
they recalled the vehicles "voluntarily" (after being threaten with a
forced recall).

How about Tacomas with leaky fuel systems?

http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/...ota_tacoma.htm

How about Tundra brake lines being cut by the exhaust system. I
suppose that isn't problem either?

http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/...ota_tundra.htm

There are many others, Camry sub frames, Celica fuel tanks, Camry air
bags, Sienna fuel tanks, etc., etc., etc.

The number that died depends on who is counting. Toyota says none. I
estimate (based on NHTSA compaints) that there have been 16 people
injured and 1 killed as a result of Tundra ball joint failures
(Tacomas and Sequoias are also involved but not counted).

This is another of the things that bug me. People who buy Toyota often
acknowledge that they are more expensive, but then they claim that the
cars are cheaper to own because either the depreciation is less or the
cost of repairs and maintenance is less. In my opinion, depreciation
is irrelevant unless you are trading cars every 2 or 3 years. A 12
year old Toyota with 200,000 miles isn't worth significantly more than
a 12 year old Ford with 200,000 miles. As for repair costs, I can only
go by the experiences of people that I am close to (family and close
friends). The three most "repaired" vehicles owned by my family and
friends in the last 20 years were 1) my sons 1995 Firebird ($1200 in
total repairs, but the car had 200,000 miles and he burned out the
clutch doing stupid things), 2) my SO's 1998 Plymouth Van ($700 for a
burned valve, and it did get hauled away with a bad transmission after
9 years and 200,000 miles - still she got $500 for it), 3) my Sisters
1991 VW Passat ($1100 to replace a head damaged when the timing belt
broke). My parents have owned nothing but Fords for 50 years. In the
last 30 I doubt they spent $2000 on repairs for all of the Fords
combined. So I am having a hard time seeing where spending $2,000 more
for a Toyota to save at the most $1200 is reasonable.

OK, see my response to #8. All three of the biggest repair bills I
quoted can be attributed to abuse (for the Firebird, bad teenage
driver, for the van poor routine maintenance and towing a 21 foot sail
boat down I-95, for the Passat, poor maintenance). Toyotas aren't
immune to abuse or poor maintenance. When they fail for these reasons,
the repair costs are greater (in my opinion).

Actually four bad dealers. My SO who only wanted a Toyota finally had
to go to a dealer 50 miles away to get an acceptable deal. If I had
gone to that dealer, I might have bought a Tacoma instead of a
Frontier. However after dealing with the closer Toyota dealers I was
so disgusted that I just gave up on finding a Tacoma. One of the
problems in the Southeast is that all the Toyota dealers are closely
related through the Southeast Toyota Distributor. Sometimes it seems
to me that they collude, or are "managed" by the distributor in such a
way as to reduce price competition. Of course this isn't just a Toyota
problem any more. So many of the formerly independent dealers are now
parts of larger groups, price competition is a lot less than in the
past.

Ed

"El Bandito" ...
You're saying it's the cops' fault?!

If so, why don't more of other police vehicles, like the Impalas they tend
to use now, catch fire?

Natalie

First, let me say, this is the most reasonable response I've ever seen from
you. It's more cogent, and less of a rant. Way more effective, IMO.

Read on...
"C. E. White" <cewhite3 (AT) removemindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Seems the same to me- you're saying I'm somehow being fooled.
You said we won't even consider another type of make, which is only true of
a few fans I've see on various boards. I never say never, about most
things, cars/trucks included. At least try not to lump us all into the
"Toyotas are perfect" category. It's simply not true.
It is when you dismiss the opinions of others. At least that's how many of
your posts *seem* You do appear to be a very reasonable guy, way moreso
than you-know-who, which is why I keep conversing with you (not that my
conversing with someone is a special treat )
No, but please at least acknowledge what some of the others have told you.
It so happens that I think you're telling the truth about many things,
especially with trucks, but without any evidence, you are not likely to
convince anyone of the validity of your counterpoints. That's all I'm
saying. When someone posts data on a particular vehicle, you often don't
even say, "OK, that's something to consider" or something like that. All I
see is Toyota-harping.
No, I didn't give up on Subarus, because I found out later that particular
one (The early 90s Loyale) was a particular POS, but other Subarus were
pretty good. So again, I didn't just go by my experience with *one* Subaru.
Mea culpa - I misread this line:


You invalidate it every time you lump us all into the Toyota-worshipping
category.
Well, you already know what I think about trucks in general, so I won't
rehash, but I still don't believe Toyota has been anymore deceptive than
most other advertising. I put very little stock in as, myself. Doing your
own research on an expensive item is the key. All I consider with ads are
the bells and whistles. Nothing more.
And that's Toyota's fault? Competition is competition. I have plenty of
sympathy for US autoworkers, I swear, but it just sounds like D3 got hoisted
on its own petard. Toyota saw a market, and exploited it. (yes, I said
"exploited"). Just seems like good business to me.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't doubt your statistics, especially on
trucks. My point is that I've always been very happy with Toyota small
cars. Truck data is irrelevent to me, but I think you should absolutely
speak up about it.
I believe what you've said, but have a very hard time believing all of the
same things would happen to a Toyota (small one, anyway). I've just not
seen the myriad problems you claim are common to all cars.
True, you have to be nice to the Toyota for it to be nice to you, but even
my abusive son hasn't managed to do serious harm. Oh wait, he got sand in
my bearings ($400), but I made him pay that. :-)
If you're talking about the ones in the Phoenix area, Larry Miller, I
TOTALLY AGREE.

They suck big-time. They nearly trashed my Corolla FX 16 before I took it
elsewhere, and their attitude is downright nasty.

Too bad you had to deal with them, if that's what you mean.

Natalie

You are kidding, right? When Ford duplicated the crash that caused the
Interceptor to 'catch fire' the speed of the vehicle that hit it was moving
at 70 MPH. When they crashed the same model car into the two other
certified police cars, the Chevy and Dodge, it ran completely over the both
of them.. The fact is the Interceptor is built to take a 50 MPH rear hit,
without effecting the fuel tank. The other two will only take a 30 MPH,
which is the NHTSA minimum standard for all cars



mike.


"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Mike Hunter wrote:
Kinda like surviving two rear ends from Civics...

Those scratches are bigger then I thought. I'll have to rebolt the
bumper and fix those scratches...

As I said, anything that can cause a Panther to catch fire is gonna be
either a truck, or another Panther

(A Volvo Might do it if it hits it hard enough)



--
Don't drink water, fish have sex in it!

Wickeddoll® wrote:
Front-wheel drive cars? (Impalas)

Any studies to back that up?

I would gladly rear-end an Impala with my Panther and see which one
catches fire...

My CD Changer might skip.

--
Don't drink water, fish have sex in it!

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:euu11s.34c.1 (AT) news (DOT) evilcabal.org...

The Crown Victoria is a rear wheel drive vehicle with a solid rear
axle. There are only limited number of places where the fuel tank can
be located. In a CV it is above and slightly behind the rear axle. In
order to damage the tank you literally have to bend the whole rear of
the car forward and down. NHTSA studied the CV gas tank and concluded
that it was no more likely to catch fire than the tank in a Chevrolet
Caprice, the other commonly used vehicle with a solid rear axle.
Because of the nature of police operations there are a couple of
factor that come in to play that make it more likely that the tank
will be damaged and that a fire might result -

1) Police offers often pull off on the shoulders of the road. Sitting
on the shoulder make them especially vulnerable to being hit in the
rear by vehicles moving at high speed. Being struck in the rear by an
SUV and HD truck doing 60+ can crush the rear of the car to the point
that the gas tank is damaged. I believe you live in NC, so the next
time you see a HP Car with someone stopped notice how they now angle
the rear of the car away from the road. Although you can find cases
where severe collisions resulted in a CV catching on fire, there are
plenty of other cases where the rear of the car has been literally
pushed into the back seat, and yet the officer survived. Although an
Impala in a similar crash might not catch fire, it is likely that the
officer might be killed by the force of the collision.

2) Officers often fill the trunks of cars with heavy items and guns
and ammunition. In some cases these items have been shoved through the
wall of the trunk and then through the gas tank as well (their is a
wall between the trunk and gas tank). To reduce the chances of this
happening, Ford has offered to retrofit patrol cars with an additional
liner. If for no other reason, this is less likely to be a problem in
an Impala because the trunk is much smaller and therefore can't hold
as many heavy objects.

The Chevy Impala is a front wheel drive car. Because there is no drive
shaft, the fuel tank can be mounted underneath the rear seat. At least
in the case of rear end collisions, this is a safer location. Also
since the rear suspension is much lighter and smaller, it is less
likely to rupture the fuel tank which is located further forward than
the tank in a CV. Their is no doubt that the Impala has a better fuel
tank location. The new Dodge Chargers also have a better location.
They have independent rear suspension. Since they no longer have to
allow for the movement of the drive shaft and the rear differential,
there are more options for gas tank placement.

The CV is an old design. As a civilian vehicle it has a very good
safety record. For instance, a Toyota Avalon has an injury loss rating
of 79, while a Crown Victoria has an injury loss rating of 71 (lower
is better). A Camry has an injury loss rating of 110 (worse than
average - 100 is average). A Toyota Echo has an injury loss rating of
189.

The Crown Victoria has stayed in production for so long because it
offers a combination that is hard to beat for police work. The
following article summarizes it better than I could:
http://hamptonroads.com/stories/crown_vics.html

Ed

Der MoPar thought the RWD Dodge would hurt Ford RWD Interceptor as a pursuit
vehicle.. The fact is the RWD Dodge is not selling as well as did the FWD
Dodge police cars. The reason not enough room in the trunk or the rear
seat. Many bought the FWD Dodge knowing it was not a very good pursuit
vehicle but with the intention of using them on city patrols where the FWD
would have an advantage in winter. Although the Dodge sold for around 2K
less the FWD setup resulted in much higher maintenance costs that used up
any savings on the purchase price.

mike


"C. E. White" <cewhite3 (AT) removemindspring (DOT) com> wrote

"El Bandito" ...
#1. You're evil...

#2. I'm asking *you* if this ever happened to Impalas? My point is to ask
why this particular disaster apparently only happened (to my knowledge) with
Crown Vics, and many moons ago, the Pinto.

Natalie