GM Inside News Forum banner

41 - 45 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
Lots of models, but no volume, and they were Japanese Domestic only.
No - unless your definition of a 'Japanese Domestic only" market includes Asia Pacific (Rotary exports from 1969) Europe (1970) and North America (1971).

Gosh here's an R100 on the cover of a non-Japanese magazine I bought in July 1969...

The Rx-7 outsold all of these combined by a long shot, yet, it's still a low volume product.
Again no - it took Mazda six years 1979~1985 to sell 470,000 Series 1/2 RX7 (combined).
Yet Mazda sold 300,000 Rotors in only 30 months from 1971. Btw how is Cadillac doing these days?

More than one in every three Mazda cars built in 1971 had a rotary engine and similar in 1972~1973.

All in all, not a bad production average from a Company that - according to you - was in pre-'73 times "not that into rotaries" :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
746 Posts
I'm guessing the Duramax doesn't have this problem? I fill my tank to the brim and have never thrown any CEL codes (knock on wood).

My problems have been other ones, namely the ****ty tailgate handle and bezel (more than once), intermediate steering shaft (more than once), and tie-rods, among other things with the front end, failing on my Sierra, all prematurely. It really is a PITA, and my truck has had a pretty easy life. Completely unacceptable if you ask me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
746 Posts
YEP... they finally implemented safety measures other manufactures have had around since the 1990s in their vehicles.....

still the same old smoke and mirrors from toyota.... people just fall for it is all... and all this new saftey stuff and they still cant get some of their vehicles to pass even, and barely any get 5 stars all around. actually I dont think any do....

and what safety measures did they take for the massive rust recalls on their trucks... tell people to only drive in dry warm weather.... really. :lmao:
No, they bought the trucks back for well over what they were worth and in other cases replaced frames on trucks past the warranty period, and then went the extra mile to extend the warranty another 15 years.

Toyota's response to what was later found to be a supplier's fault was nothing short of spectacular, and I should know; my old Tacoma was bought back for rust perforation and I got a hefty check in the mail a week after it was bought back...this on a vehicle that had high miles and was worked from day 1. It was still in reasonably good shape, but not prestine. I replaced that old '98 Taco with an '08 Taco because Toyota's customer service was top-notch, and other than my frame, that truck never put up a fuss and only required routine maintenance. I miss it all the time, but do like my '08, which at 32K hasn't given me an ounce of trouble, which unfortunately cannot be said for my more expensive Sierra when it had 32K.

As for safety, my '98 Taco had better safety ratings than the S-10 of the time, and the 2004 Tundra has way better ratings than my 2004 Sierra.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
No, they bought the trucks back for well over what they were worth and in other cases replaced frames on trucks past the warranty period, and then went the extra mile to extend the warranty another 15 years.

Toyota's response to what was later found to be a supplier's fault was nothing short of spectacular, and I should know; my old Tacoma was bought back for rust perforation and I got a hefty check in the mail a week after it was bought back...this on a vehicle that had high miles and was worked from day 1. It was still in reasonably good shape, but not prestine. I replaced that old '98 Taco with an '08 Taco because Toyota's customer service was top-notch, and other than my frame, that truck never put up a fuss and only required routine maintenance. I miss it all the time, but do like my '08, which at 32K hasn't given me an ounce of trouble, which unfortunately cannot be said for my more expensive Sierra when it had 32K.

As for safety, my '98 Taco had better safety ratings than the S-10 of the time, and the 2004 Tundra has way better ratings than my 2004 Sierra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-o8K9KOYgI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWdT4bRnCHI&feature=related
Typical response.... the point is the frames shold not be rusting out on a 5 year old truck, replace them or not, they did not have a choice but to replace them....

GM did the same on the Duramax in 03-04 on the injectors..... slice it any way you want your post has nothing to do with safety measure they implemented, only points to them cleaning up a mess they made... supplier problems??? so GM makes everyting item put in their trucks and cars, nope, most of these problems can be traced back to supplier as well..

as for safety.... maybe read some more, maybe in 04 Topyota ws on par with the rest, now they are FAR FAR behind with not one of their vehicles getting a 5 star all the way around and some of them even FAILED the test cause as Toyota put it ' the test was to hard' well everyone else passed, **** GM got a perfect 100% on the cruze.... the Tundra is not barely a 4 star... its is 6th as far as safety, with Dodge actually leading hte wat, the silv is 2nd and the Sierra is 4th behind the F150, go figure sine hte Silv and Siera are the smae truck...

anyhow

and lets ot forget all this, after all it was so long ago, Dec I think of 2010...

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132227365/toyota-to-pay-32-million-fine-in-safety-probes

Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to pay the U.S. government more than $32 million in new fines to settle an investigation into its handling of two big safety recalls.oh look more...

Toyota Motor Company is recalling upwards of 153,418 Toyota Camrys between the year 2005 and 2011 for failing to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. Toyota failed to fit the Camry with the tire loading placard, stating the maximum load the tires can bear

that is just a couple I can rememer ofof the top of my head.... sooo ya they are looking out for their customers.....

YEAH for Toyota.... REALLY!!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
746 Posts
Typical response.... the point is the frames shold not be rusting out on a 5 year old truck, replace them or not, they did not have a choice but to replace them....

GM did the same on the Duramax in 03-04 on the injectors..... slice it any way you want your post has nothing to do with safety measure they implemented, only points to them cleaning up a mess they made... supplier problems??? so GM makes everyting item put in their trucks and cars, nope, most of these problems can be traced back to supplier as well..

as for safety.... maybe read some more, maybe in 04 Topyota ws on par with the rest, now they are FAR FAR behind with not one of their vehicles getting a 5 star all the way around and some of them even FAILED the test cause as Toyota put it ' the test was to hard' well everyone else passed, **** GM got a perfect 100% on the cruze.... the Tundra is not barely a 4 star... its is 6th as far as safety, with Dodge actually leading hte wat, the silv is 2nd and the Sierra is 4th behind the F150, go figure sine hte Silv and Siera are the smae truck...

anyhow

and lets ot forget all this, after all it was so long ago, Dec I think of 2010...

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132227365/toyota-to-pay-32-million-fine-in-safety-probes

Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to pay the U.S. government more than $32 million in new fines to settle an investigation into its handling of two big safety recalls.oh look more...

Toyota Motor Company is recalling upwards of 153,418 Toyota Camrys between the year 2005 and 2011 for failing to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. Toyota failed to fit the Camry with the tire loading placard, stating the maximum load the tires can bear

that is just a couple I can rememer ofof the top of my head.... sooo ya they are looking out for their customers.....

YEAH for Toyota.... REALLY!!!!!
Seems I've struck a nerve with you. It also seems you have no idea what you're talking about when you list the Dodge Ram as having the top ratings in NHTSA's crash tests. Infact, being the newest vehicle of the bunch, you'd be surprised to hear that it has the WORST overall ratings of all full-size pickups according to NHTSA's brand new test results (that older designs have traditionally struggled with due to being engineered to the old standards) and the IIHS frontal side impact score, where it received a "Marginal", while the Tundra and F-150 got "Good" ratings all around. The GMs did better than Dodge, but not as good as the Toyota and Ford in the IIHS tests.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/03/07/2011-tundra-crash-test-ratings/

To be fair, you're right, the GM trucks do well overall in the NHTSA tests, but so did the Toyota (and most likely Ford), with the GMT-900 regular and extended cab, along with the Tundra regular and Double Cab getting 4 stars overall. The 900s got a 5 star Crew Cab rating, with the Tundra CrewMax yet to be tested.

I still am not seeing how Toyota is any worse than anybody safety wise, and in many cases, they're actually better than the competition with respect to safety, and the ratings from present and past vehicles are there to prove it. Only thing I'm concerned about is how a practically brand-new design like the Ram failed so hard in the tests, while older designs like GM, Ford, and Toyota did far better.
 
41 - 45 of 45 Posts
Top