It appears the bridge is burning for Toyota as wel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
GM and Ford both make great RWD Automatic transmissions.

My ATSG manual for the GM 4L60E and 4L65E says that hard part failures are still a problem for the 4L65E, the latest version of a transmission which was first introduced in 1987.


I had the Alison in mind when I said that..... I'm not a big GM guy, so I don't know of "specific issues" with certain GM products.....
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The rust issue: Since rust doesn't happen overnight, how does one get their act together quickly if the problem doesn't manifest itself for years?


Adequate testing in advance to identify sub-par metallurgy that would lead to massive failure?

No idea about your Sunbird. I'd say that was another dropping of the ball by GM. Like the intake gasket thing.
 
Yes and no. There really isn't much difference between a LeSabre and a Pontiac Gran Prix. Same engine, same transaxle, same A/C compressor, same alternator, etc.

Some different trim, different spring rates, etc.

But there was more the same than different. So much so that you would expect any problems would be discovered quickly and addressed since the exposure was across so many cars.

It's not like the transaxles mentioned were used in one obscure car, or the 3.1 and 3.4L V6's.

The very fact that there were so many different vehicles using engines that were not designed by the brands, but were corporate engines indicates that someone wasn't watching the store when it came to those engines or transaxles.
 
"QUICK"

When it doesn't even get a chance to become a factor that affects sales or its image about reliability and quality, it IS considered quick.

for the percentage v/s absolute numbers part - No use putting a technical spin on it, percentage IS what matters.

More Divisions -
So are you saying having more divisions is a valid excuse ???
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The rust issue: Since rust doesn't happen overnight, how does one get their act together quickly if the problem doesn't manifest itself for years?


Adequate testing in advance to identify sub-par metallurgy that would lead to massive failure?

No idea about your Sunbird. I'd say that was another dropping of the ball by GM. Like the intake gasket thing.


We can go on and on. There are things the domestics did better, such as rustproofing where the Japanese had to catch up.

Likewise, there are/were things where the situation was reversed.

My '94 Prizm has an iron block, aluminum head engine that Toyota has been using since the 1980's. No wide spread head gasket issues with those engines.

Meanwhile, GM doesn't have such a good history with similar setups. I believe both the Quad-4 and the OHC 2.0L engine have head gasket issues.

The thing that is mindboggling is that Toyota is buying back 10 year old trucks that have rust issues.

Is GM buying back or fixing cars with lunched transmissions and/or head gaskets.

I asked the question about the program in place for my cars.

That's the source of my beef. Not that any car maker has issues, but what they do in response.

I see the existence of such programs as a good thing, not a bad thing. Problems happen. Good companies make right on those problem issues.

I've never had such an issue addressed by GM.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I had the Alison in mind when I said that..... I'm not a big GM guy, so I don't know of "specific issues" with certain GM products.....


The Allison is a truck and bus transmission. I will agree that it is stout, but that is in a commercial or non-automotive segment. The bread and butter RWD car and truck transmissions have been the 700R4/4L60, 4L60E/4L65E, the 2004R, and the 4L80(E). The first four of those are all variations of the 700R4, and they are all failure prone (still).
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I had the Alison in mind when I said that..... I'm not a big GM guy, so I don't know of "specific issues" with certain GM products.....


The Allison is a truck and bus transmission. I will agree that it is stout, but that is in a commercial or non-automotive segment. The bread and butter RWD car and truck transmissions have been the 700R4/4L60, 4L60E/4L65E, the 2004R, and the 4L80(E). The first four of those are all variations of the 700R4, and they are all failure prone (still).


Yeah, 2500/3500-series tranny behind the Duralax.
 
Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
"QUICK"

When it doesn't even get a chance to become a factor that affects sales or its image about reliability and quality, it IS considered quick.

for the percentage v/s absolute numbers part - No use putting a technical spin on it, percentage IS what matters.

More Divisions -
So are you saying having more divisions is a valid excuse ???




No, I'm saying the company was a sprawling monstrosity with so much going on that they continually dropped the 8-ball due to their size and lack of organizational skills.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour


The thing that is mindboggling is that Toyota is buying back 10 year old trucks that have rust issues.

Is GM buying back or fixing cars with lunched transmissions and/or head gaskets.

I asked the question about the program in place for my cars.

That's the source of my beef. Not that any car maker has issues, but what they do in response.

I see the existence of such programs as a good thing, not a bad thing. Problems happen. Good companies make right on those problem issues.

I've never had such an issue addressed by GM.


And in it's position, Toyota is doing the right thing to maintain it's loyal customer base.

GM didn't.

As I said, I make no excuses for GM. There's a reason I don't own any.
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I had the Alison in mind when I said that..... I'm not a big GM guy, so I don't know of "specific issues" with certain GM products.....


The Allison is a truck and bus transmission. I will agree that it is stout, but that is in a commercial or non-automotive segment. The bread and butter RWD car and truck transmissions have been the 700R4/4L60, 4L60E/4L65E, the 2004R, and the 4L80(E). The first four of those are all variations of the 700R4, and they are all failure prone (still).


Actually the general consensus is that these are some of the most reliable transmissions ever developed.
 
Originally Posted By: lovcom

Please don't tell us about ONE Japanese car that was a lemon.

Instead, tell us about millions of Japanese cars that are lemons.

Oh but of course you can't, because it ain't so.

I find it funny how some domestic lovers point to one or two Japanese cars that were so, so bad, but ignore the MILLIONS of domestic cars that are abosulte [censored].

Perhaps a first year course in statistics is warranted for some.

I wish I could tell you my dad's Civic Hybrid was the only one to eat transmissions or constantly rattle, but these are common, in fact typical problems for these cars. There are many cases of these cars needing as many as three transmissions before 100K. The dash rattles and other fit and finish problems are common too.

OVERK1LL already hit on some of the problems that have plagued MILLIONS of Japanese vehicles, but what the heck, lets add to the list:

The new Tundra has had shaky quality at best. Broken camshafts, sagging dashboards, separating tailgates, etc.

The Toyota FJ has had serious issues with body flex. It is so bad that sheetmetal under the hood on some of them is ripping apart, and they crack windshields frequently.

IIRC, Honda tried to dodge fixing bad automatics for years. You can only ignore a transmission that locks up at highway speeds for so long though I guess.

I'll give it to you that Japanese vehicles on average in the mid 1980s through the late 1990s were very reliable. Quality seems to have been on a fairly steady decline since then though. Lots of problems are showing up in new vehicles...many that could/should have been discovered during preproduction testing. The quality gap isn't there anymore.

I won't deny at all that the domestics have produced some poorly made vehicles. There are plenty of Fords, GMs, and Chryslers I would not buy. There are a lot of Japanese vehicles I won't buy either though. I won't waste my time with problem vehicles. I buy what I know will work. I have never had to do a single major repair on a Ranger-based truck, so I'll keep buying them. When Toyota makes a Tacoma that doesn't rust (models up to '04), and doesn't crack beds and have marginal fit and finish (current models), I may give them a try. Until then, I simply have no reason to change.
 
The above post is correct, I, too, had a ranger, Ford's cheapest
product..yet, I drove it 60000 miles (odometer at 125000) and never spent any money on repairs. None. Sold it because of boredom, bought a japanese made mazda B2600 4x4 to replace it. In 3 years I only put 15000 miles on it because it CONSTANTLY needed major repair (engine, trans, and pretty much everything else). Do you guys realize what the normal life of a NYC crown vic taxi is?
400,000 miles. Try that in a toyota.
Somewhere along the way, our big 3 have gotten a bad image, I don't get it...the product is good. ( I am not a UAW worker, I work in a machine shop. When the chrome flakes off of your silent-shaft chain, and ends up in the cam races, I am the guy that has to tell you, "sorry, your engine has no babbit bearings in the cam race, the head must be replaced )
 
B2600 was made in japan, mitsu engine, mazda trans and transfer case. I replaced all 3 units by 75k. When I could finally get it together to sell it, the bed fell off the frame (hidden rust)
loading it onto the trailer. That truck almost killed me!
 
People really need to understand the scope of the Toyota Tacoma buy-back. Toyota really stepped up to the plate on this... they're giving 1.5 times the book value. If your 10 y/o Taco is worth lets say $10,000, then you're receiving $15 grand for a truck you probably paid at most $20 grand. So for 10 years it cost $5,000 or $42 DOLLARS/month. Show me a lower cost of ownership? This is why domestics are doomed to fail as their multitude of mistakes cannot be overlooked or forgiven.
 
I have owned many GM products over the years, and many problems. I have owned 3 Toyota's over the years and have had some issues. My first Toyota truck I replaced after 18 years of ownership. After 18 years I was disappointed that I needed to part with it. That truck was replaced with a 2003 Tacoma that is just as good as the vehicle that it replaced. That Tacoma was manufactured at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California by UAW workers. It was designed at the Calty Research and Design Facility. That vehicle hardly qualifies as a import. I may add, no rust on the frame or anywhere.

We just purchased a 2008 Toyota Tundra one week ago. We considered the Ford since I own stock in Ford. We considered GM. In the end we carefully reviewed the options presented, and again chose another Toyota. The Tundra is manufactured in Texas. The domestic parts content is 90%. We believe since it is manufactured in Texas and contains 90% domestic parts content, that it does not qualify as a import.

So we currently own a:

1995 Toyota 4-Runner which we will sell.

2003 Toyota Tacoma with almost 70,000 miles.

2008 Toyota Tundra with 400 miles.


The only import out of those three is the 4-Runner.

We appreciate the folks that support American workers. We strongly suggest, and recommend folks do what they can to support companies that manufacture products in the USA. We also believe now is the best time to buy a vehicle regardless of the brand. Any choice you make should be made with the idea that you will be holding the vehicle for a long time, so choose wisely.
 
".. Toyota is always mentioned as being the standard for ALL MANUFACTURING...PERIOD!"

Well, they seem to have more copied practices ( remember when the movies stereotyped the Japanese for copying in minute detail every successful practice..... well we now need to poke fun ourselves too ) than any other single company, but certainly not all practices. 'Six Sigma' seems to be one of the more widely copied current practices, used in a number of industries, and it was initially developed at Motorola.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: lovcom
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
Originally Posted By: JMHC
The Big 3 have lived by the mantra buy our [censored] because it's cheaper with these big rebates.


Heck, if it was just about money I'd still buy their's! What about the waste of time, hassle and stress. Not to mention the lack of something called 'peace of mind' and the 'confidence' or trust that it will not leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere, which I don't think can be bought by any rebate or financing scheme.


Overk1ll,
the difference is - they learnt and got their act together, QUICK! but the others wouldn't learn and act even if they were half into their grave already.



Ford has been doing quite well getting their act together since Alan Mulally started running the ship.

Toyota's frame rust issue covers from 1995 to 2004. I don't see that as "getting their act together QUICK!".

Toyota's sludge recall covers 1997-2002. Again, I don't see that as "getting their act together QUICK!".

Honda's fix was I believe much quicker. So on that one, you may be correct.


Yes, you can find true fault in Toyota, and I agree. And I'm sure you can dredge up more truthful issues with many of the other Japanese makes, and we agree.

But you list EXCEPTIONS and not THE RULE.

With domestics, problems are the rule. And it is those few domestic models, like the Ford Fusion, and Focus that are the exceptions because they are one of a few domestic models that are reliable and have less flaws then the other domestic models.

So lets not list exceptions. Lets list what is the norm, and if you look at the norm, then the Japanese cars will look exceedingly better then the domestics.



BUT, during the time period we are dealing with (90's), look how many different models GM had.

I'm going to use GM here as an example, because of course, they are largest.

I'm going to start a list from the top of my head:

1. Chevrolet:

a. Cavalier
b. Silverado
c. Astro
d. Venture
e. S10
f. Beretta
g. Blazer
i. Camaro
j. Caprice
k. Impalla
l. Corsica
m. Corvette
n. Lumina
o. Lumina Van
p. Monte Carlo
q. Malibu
r. Suburban

And that's ONE division!!!!!

We still have, GMC, Cadillac, Saturn, Saab, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Hummer....etc.

In comparison, for the same time-frame, Toyota had:

a. 4Runner
b. Avalon
c. Camry
d. Celica
e. Corolla
f. Cressida
g. Land Cruiser
h. MR2
i. Paseo
j. Pickup
k. Previa
l. RAV4
m. Sienna
n. Supra

And then you have Lexus.

There's a whole lot more there to go wrong with all those divisions and power-train options, platforms and electronics.....

And that's pretty much what happened.


Nice try, but your argument makes no sense.

Most of those GM models you list are the same car, just differnet badge or slightly different body shape.

And forget about numbers, if you look at PERCENTAGES, then you will readly see that percentage wise, you are MUCH MORE likely to have failures with the domestic brands. And if you look at percentages, the number of models for a given make does not matter one bit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Anyone else never own an oil burning vehicle?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
Tdbo
SammyChevelleTypeS3
NEW Vehicle Advice / Recommendations: Anyone? Subaru or Toyota? What says the gang?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
2K
mikeduf
Z
Mazda dealer threatens to void my CX-5 warranty if I don't let them change my oil every 6 months...
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
wpod
HawkeyeScott
RAV4 ignition coil conundrum
Replies
7
Views
307
HawkeyeScott
A
Best HPL for Oil Burning Toyota 22RE
2
Replies
30
Views
831
Sienna dude
Back
Top Bottom