Why ??? Do we as consumer not demand more????UOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dailydriver,you don't need my help to reveal your ignorance. You do fine on your own.
laugh.gif
 
It has everything to do with driving style and PM regimen, and nearly nothing to do with QC or metalurgy or powertrain design.

People thrash their hondas and toyotas, and get next to no life out of them. People take care of their domestics, and they last forever. Both kinds of vehicles exhibit similar misdesign issues from time to time.

More folks treat their appliance imports to whatever the dealer suggests without batting an eyelash, compared to domestic owners who are programmed that their dealer is automatically ripping them off - what do these mentalities do to longevity???

There is a reason why our multiple >200k miles cars fire on the first cylinder each time. Its not magic - its respect and driving the vehicles nicely, then sinking the dollars into PM as necessary to prevent failures.

Its not magic, its quite easy.

If you dismiss your vehicle as ld and ruined just because it has over 60k, 75k, 100k, etc., then youre likely inherently going to mistreat it, and then guess what happens...

JMH
 
Quote:


Boy, sounds like GM is getting better...your experience is almost identical to my wife's POS 1998 Buick.
crushedcar.gif


John




You must be pompous and arrogant to make statements like that. Thats what some say about me because I don't mind say ing what I see on my job everyday. Just pretend your Buick is getting better. Maybe that will help. Joking aside,will you be buying another Buick after the one that you have now? If yes,why? If not,why? Thank you for your response.
coffeetime.gif
 
The mistakes I feel GM made was discontinuing the 350 V8 and the 3800 V6. Those engines simply will not wear out!!!!!!!! The 3800 is probably the toughest engine on the planet. My dad`s 90 Olds 88 with the 3800 in it is nearing the 500k mark with no oil usage or leakage. I also had an 87 Toronado Trofeo with the 3800 in it and I drove the living #@$%! out of that car. That car saw redline cruises on a regular basis. Kept good ole synth 20W50 in it changed regularly beyond 200k miles w/absolutely no engine issues.

The most overall reliable car I`ve ever owned was a 96 Mits 3000GT. All I ever did to her was giver her regular synth oil changes from almost brand new past 135k miles. Never saw any shop time and I drove her like a sports car!

The most sturdy built and most precisionly made car I`ve ever owned is my Nissan Z. That car`s built like a tank! Her VG30DE V6 also has an iron block.

There`s something we all have in common here with our BITOG family,the love for the automobile and OIL!!!!!!!!!!!
cheers.gif
 
Mokanic, do you realize that after you called cousincletus ignorant you filled this thread with doubly ignorant posts? How do you take yourself seriously?

Getting back on topic, I agree with JHZR2 and have yet to see even the slightest shred of evidence that would suggest that slightly elevated wear numbers equals less longevity.
 
"I'm thinking with fuel on the rise, Toyota would be better to bring back the smaller Tacoma as well as GM to bring back something smaller than the Canyon and it's cousin.

Dodge has nothing to offer in the mini truck segment,..."

It's a poor assumption to think that smaller means better fuel mileage, if that's what you're implying. My 3/4 ton Dodge diesel gets as good or better city mileage than all of the Tacomas except for the 2.7 liter engines, comparing my actual mileage with the EPA city mileage for the Tacomas. I just drive, and don't strive for better mileage.
 
Quote:


LOL....I'm not touching the "foreign" versus "domestic" comments.
Few years back I was discussing this issue of Toyota engines versus GM engines with a engine builder. He had a unique viewpoint I'll share. He is/was convinced GM utilizes a much softer metal/material than Toyota specs for their rings/bearings etc. GM engineers are of the mindset these "softer" metals provide better performance and efficiencies...and will last just as long as the harder specs Toyota calls for. Of course this would account for higher wear metals in UOA's coming from a GM engine. Interesting viewpoint and I haven't a clue if it is accurate. Just added for whatever you experts can glean from it.


G.M. uses lower quality is the real term for softer. Also the clearances are less which is better. The machine tolerances are less than G.M's which is why some peoples G.M.s are good but there are more that are worse ,look at the numbers But my 2006 Toyota Tacoma has really poor quality compared to my 1985 Toyota truck or my 1992 Toyota truck which was my favorite.
 
Quote:


"I'm thinking with fuel on the rise, Toyota would be better to bring back the smaller Tacoma as well as GM to bring back something smaller than the Canyon and it's cousin.

Dodge has nothing to offer in the mini truck segment,..."

It's a poor assumption to think that smaller means better fuel mileage, if that's what you're implying. My 3/4 ton Dodge diesel gets as good or better city mileage than all of the Tacomas except for the 2.7 liter engines, comparing my actual mileage with the EPA city mileage for the Tacomas. I just drive, and don't strive for better mileage.


What is interesting is gas has really been pricy for what, the last 9 or 10 years. People still are buying big suvs .
 
Quote:


Dailydriver,you don't need my help to reveal your ignorance. You do fine on your own.
laugh.gif





So, according to you, (the "almighty one"
laugh.gif
) I'm "ignorant" because I've had a GREAT experience with my GM, do I have that right, your highness?
smirk.gif

Of course, if the deity Mokie says it is so, NO ONE (mortal or otherwise) has any right to question him.
crackmeup.gif
 
Quote:


"I'm thinking with fuel on the rise, Toyota would be better to bring back the smaller Tacoma as well as GM to bring back something smaller than the Canyon and it's cousin.

Dodge has nothing to offer in the mini truck segment,..."

It's a poor assumption to think that smaller means better fuel mileage, if that's what you're implying. My 3/4 ton Dodge diesel gets as good or better city mileage than all of the Tacomas except for the 2.7 liter engines, comparing my actual mileage with the EPA city mileage for the Tacomas. I just drive, and don't strive for better mileage.




I suppose if you compare diesel with gas you'll get an advantage.

But then a diesel powered smaller truck would get even better fuel economy.

More energy is needed to move a larger, heavier truck that has a greater frontal area, compared to a smaller, lighter truck.

You do get more usable energy out of a gallon of diesel, but often pay a premium for the truck that you often will not get back if you don't drive long distances and/or tow heavy loads.

My assumption is not bad, if you compare vehicles using the same fuel.
 
It's human nature to justify ones own purchases whatever those may be. If someone is happy with their choice and it is provicing them with a service then what's the issue?
Well back to more interesting discussions...
 
"More energy is needed to move a larger, heavier truck that has a greater frontal area, compared to a smaller, lighter truck.

You do get more usable energy out of a gallon of diesel, but often pay a premium for the truck that you often will not get back if you don't drive long distances and/or tow heavy loads."

But you get the premium back if you don't drive without 6 kids in the minivan, or drive a BMW at 120 mph everywhere, or etc., so that's kind of a moot point, as people drive what they want to drive. As fas as size goes, like was said on MIB; 'when are you humans going to learn that size doesn't matter ?' Fuel economy is fuel economy, whether it's gas or diesel or hybrid.

Also, I did get a smaller diesel powered truck, as it's not a long bed or duallie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom