New Unisaw - The flag is back

Page 4 of 6  


Both ture observations.

That is not entirely ture. I live in Houston and have done so since the early 70's. Most every vehicle is available here and seen on a daily basis including Ferrari. Because Houston is still growing there is opportunity for more and more dealerships. If you live in a city or small town that is not growing rapidly the opportunity to add another sucessful dealership is limited. Because vehicles are major investments a new model is not usually purchased on a whim and the customer is more comfortable with what he knows. Typically GM, Ford, and Dodge have been around for a very long time in any decent sized town. In the 70's you did not see as many imports in Houston as you do now. I dont exagerate when I say that half or more vehicles on the road are Japanese and that trend is growing. The clostest Toyota dealership to me is my far busier in the service department than probably the largest Chevy dealer ship in the country where my son works part time. And don't equate that to a lack of reliabibliy. The majority of traffic in the Toyota service department is for the quick lube center which also rotates and balances tires, and changes batteries. YES all vehicles have problems and yes you typically only hear about the ones with problems. You more often hear about problems than you do reliability. When I worked for the GM dealership the shop was the money maker, dealers bought franchises so that they could sell a product that was going to need to be serviced. Oldsmobile warranty work was our most frequent customer by a huge percentage and yes dealerships are credited for the warranty work that they perform. Warranty work is an easy sale, the customer does not have to authorize the work therefore warranty work is a major income segment in the service department. There is a problem with that however, warranty work was/is often troublesome to diagnose and does not return as much profit as does regular non warranty repair work. Absolutely the best most profitable work is routine maintence work. There is no lost time in diagnosis and typically the customer knows what he needs to have done before he gets there. You do not have to call him back to tell him what it will cost and get authorization to perform the work. The Japanese auto makers seem to have recognise these facts and reliability is probably why Toyota has become one of the Big 3.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote: ...

But it is...it'll take tens of years before a slight outselling of the Big 3 (and I still don't think they're outselling them in full-size truck market--they simply don't have the model numbers available to do so) will even come close to catching up to the volume on the road.
The dynamics aren't the same as for the automobile end at all.
As for the smaller market dynamics (which I am in, thankfully), there's a little bit of truth there, but there has been a Toyota dealer as well for quite a lot of time (as noted, it's also the Chevy dealership).
The fact is, the demand here for work trucks is for hard-working work trucks (which is what I've focused on as that seemed to be the area of interest I thought until the sidelight of the SUV came up) and the lower payload, no better or worse mileage ratings and particularly the no-diesel option really limits the "likeability" of the Tundra for that market. They sell a decent number all pimped out for the hunters and the in-town folks who want a car that can carry something, but that's a different market. I still expect that that's the major market in Houston you're seeing as well--most of them will be traded in and still not have a scratch in the bed.
On the reliability of the Big 3, it's much like much of the other reporting these days. There was a period of some serious problems and that has now become legend and is reported as though nothing has changed since the mid-70s. The difficulty of regaining a lost reputation is legend in any arena and is no different for the automakers than an individual. They're just not getting any favors and imo much undeserved bad press and continued bashing from general folks who just do so because it's "the in thing" rather than real knowledge/experience.
You have experience, but even much of your anecdotes are somewhat dated and not directly reflective of current state of affairs.
The Chevy shop here is generally half empty these days--there just aren't enough vehicles to repair, warranty or otherwise. I have a Chrysler 300 as well as the GM products and the Chrysler/Dodge dealer is probably the largest in town (owing in large part to the popularity of the Ram) and yet it's not difficult to get in to their service area, either, even though they've not added personnel for years and their sales have mushroomed.
--

--
--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not in the specific case of the Titan to which I was referring. The travails of the Titan have been well documented, and they have finally given up on trying to fix them.
http://tinyurl.com/6lajrr
Much more than an economic move, a small amount of research will reveal that assembly problems, rear end problems, and overall quality control problems contributed to this move. Since this is just idle conversation between all of us, I didn't dig around for the specifics that were cited by Nissan, but the gist was that they still wanted to be in the truck market, but were abandoning their own efforts due to the fact they simply couldn't get it right.
Perhaps this is why:
http://tinyurl.com/4smh9u
Pretty ugly scores for a truck that has been in manufacture for some time now, certainly long enough to get the kinks out of design and manufacture.
Interesting too, is that not only will the Titan be built along side the Dodge trucks, but they will drop their own engineering and design for the structure/frame, power train, engine, and finish options. However, Nissan assures it loyal few that "above the frame" it will be Nissan engineered.

paying my guys, and a comfortable venue for negotiation with subcontractors. I write and negotiate with subs on the spot as needed in the air conditioned comfort of the truck.
It has to look nice enough to drive to the house of a client, nice enough for them to believe they are getting someone that is successful at what they do. As for the amenities, you got me. I like air conditioning. After working in our South Texas heat for several hours or a day, it is nice to get in the truck and crank it up.
The truck has to take me and my tools to the job as I am a hands on guy most of the time. It hauls shingles, plywood, paint, lumber, job site debris, compressors, large tools, smelly/sweaty men (including me!) as needed.
But it needs to cast the appearance of some level of success when I drive up to a potential client's home, beyond one of that appearance being cast by a 20 year old truck that is "dependable". My personal sales persona is not that of the humble craftsman that is grateful to have work.

OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back seats.
I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a rhino with that thing.
#2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat, short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.
You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.
The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.
Those were the days.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let me wipe a tear from my eye when talking about the good ole trucks that earned their keep and built america.
Where I grew up, we had a lot of poor farmers and loggers. What we used to do with all kinds of old trucks was to cut of the body and shorten the frame. Put on some big tires, maybe a winch and make ourselves a home made tractor. One of the primary functions of this home made tractor was to pull out our regular tractor when it got into trouble.
Many of them were pretty funky in appearance. We welded on a seat from an old horse drawn wagon onto ours. Big metal leaf spring type affair with a seat that had holes to drain the rain water. Our neighbor just had a big chink of wood for his seat.
Nothing fancy. No cab, no air conditioning. no seats, etc. Often we put some pig iron or other weights on it. Quick and dirty to build. But these things saved our asses and other equipment again and again. And one of the reason why we could get away with it was because we were building it out of something that was quite substantial to begin with.
I can't imagine building anything like this out of the contemporary, pretty boys trucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And to add to that Robert, a friend that I grew up with was all GM in mind set as was I. Our parents only bought GM products. He however ended up going to work for a neighbor at a Ford dealership, I eventually ended up working with GM products. He moved up to to eventually become the service manager at the Ford truck center and commented ond day that Ford is targeting a group of people that are not picky. They simply want a vehicle that could get them from point A to point B reliably and one that could be repaired quickly when it broke down. That was back in the early 90's. I guess the thing that really make me start looking at imports more seriousely was when out dealership built a new facility close to the Toyota dealership. We also added Isuzu to our offerings. As I have previousely mentioned vwhen isiting with the Toyota parts manager and seeing the few items in their warranty scrap pile and our Isuzu scrap pile as compared to our Oldsmobile warranty scrap pile I had a pretty good indicator as to which car companies were building the more reliable product. When a vehicle is under warranty the owner seldom hesitates to complain about a problem. Literally 40% of our Oldsmobile mechanical repair business was for warranty reasons and our shop had a very good reputation. I bought my wife an Acura in 1989, our first import and it was the first small car that we easily put over 100k miles on with out any break downs. IIRC I had to replace the radiator after the 100k mark. Same goes for the 87 Isuzu Trooper, no break downs in the 10 years that I drove it. While new vehicles are exciting as you well know when you work with the vehicles or nail guns, saws, etc. day in and day out you loose the enthusiasm and start to put much more emphysis on reliability and quality.

Ahhh the old gold "Rocket" engine or was it painted black? Back when GM's different product lines actually designed and built their on engines, the Olds engine was hard to beat.

I looked at the Nissan also, my nephiew "owned" one after owning a GMC and 3 previous Dodges. Each of the Dodges left him high and dry so he decided to try the GMC. He loved it as always did what he needed it to do and it never had major problems like the Dodges did. Then he bought the Titan and was very unhappy with the gas mileage. While none of them get great mileage I can say that I am happy the the Tundra gets 20 mph on the highway with the 5.7 whaich was the same as the 97 Chevy with the 5.0 engine and 150 less hp. In town I now get a consistant 14.5-15-8 mpg as compared to the 13-14 on the old Chevy.

Tha tis exactly what put me in the Tundra.

I really think you are going to see this happen, I think Toyota wants their cut of the pie.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pretty funny. I missed it in the post.
Seriously though, how much gear do you carry in your truck to get that kind of mileage?
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash. My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut? ;-)
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Uh no, it did not come with that walnut. ;~)
Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media" has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

The big V8 in a comparably laid-out Tundra gets within 1 MPG of my V6 _Tacoma_!
My Tacoma is also cheaper per mile on Premium than Regular gas. My manual recommends Premium fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh huh, thanks to the on board computer, knock sensor and electronic timing advance. Premium used with standard ignition vehicles was not much of a help back in the late 70's and or early 80's unless the vehicle specifically required it. Because premium fuel is less likely to create engine knock than regular fuel the computer will advance ignition timing until it hears engine knock/valve clatter through the knock sensor. With electronically advanced ignition timing you normally should get better performance and gas mileage when burning premium.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to 25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.
('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)
scot
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Drop the tailgate and gain about 1/2 MPG. I used a tailgate net for years in my Dodge pick-up. It worked nicely to save the odd gallon here and there. I bought that truck with 32,000 on it and sold it just before it turned 200,000. The only out-of-usual replacement in that time was the water pump. A friend told me he'd seen it the other day, about 4-1/2 years after I sold it, with new ladder racks installed. Slant 6 auto, so it may well last forever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Didn't see Mythbusters? <G>
<http://www.scangauge.com/support/tailgate.shtml <http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/aerodynamics/fuel-economy-tip-keep-your-tailgate-up/ <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_lowering_the_tailgate_on_a_pickup_truck_increase_mpg
Maybe your net was simply much lighter than the steel gate?
The gate up and latched also improves pickup box crash performance. I would also imagine a lowered gate becoming a projectile in a crash.
I'll bet your web gate trapped enough air to create almost the same cushion as the steel gate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an 85 or lower rating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Thinner air requires a leaner mixture, but overall horsepower is reduced.
This is demonstrated to me every time I fly. <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:

increasing Octane reduced knock caused by preignition of low octane gas. This has nothing to do with valve chatter.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

Please quote carefully.
Leon said that, not me.
I think you're absolutely right about the valves, and can't figure out why octane would have anything to do with valve noise.
On the other hand, in ground school I learned that detonation is caused by too low of an octane, with the compression burning the fuel explosively before the plug fires. Pre-ignition is caused by cylinder hot spots and burning carbon deposits. The carbon deposits are usually artifacts from too rich of a mixture resulting in too low cylinder head temperatures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.