Import owners are to blame for the recession

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:26:57 -0500, Tomes wrote:

> "Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" ...
>> PeterD wrote:
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>When do you think this 100K design trend began? I'm just curious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was told expected battery life was the limiting factor.
>>
>> Actually, yup. The lifetime of the battery is about 120,000 miles. Then
>> you take it to the dealer and have another one installed.
>>
> Only if it actually needs it. Time will tell....
> Tomes


That's the word from Toyota. Remember, I used to work for a dealer. Of
course, we're talking an imperfect technology here. The batteries may
actually wear out prior to 120,000 miles, depending upon use.

Unfortunately, I don't know if they are warranteed to last 120,000 miles.

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:10:10 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well I owned two of those cars (one Sable, one Taurus). Neither had
>>electrical problems and neither had transmission problems. I sold the
>>Sable to a friend when it had 1400k miles. He drove it for another 60K
>>miles and only got rid of it when it was totaled in an accident.
>>
>>"Taurus" has a lot of name recognition. There are millions of happy
>>Taurus owners out there. I don't think I would have reused the name on
>>the Five Hundred, but I suspect Ford researched this decision a lot
>>better than I could and decided it was a good thing to do. Most of the
>>people who say bad things about a Taurus, never actually owned one....
>>
>
> There are also millions of very unhappy Taurus owners. They should
> have picked a new name.
>
> As for never owning one, my Mom had one and two of my close friends
> had one. All had tranny problems at ~ 70k miles. I'm familiar with the
> details of their repairs, the costs, etc.

I refer to them as Turduses. . . . .

And don't mind Mike too much. He's mostly conservative, but thinks every
American should WANT to own a full size car. I've driven several
'full-size' cars over the years, and I wouldn't wish them on on my worst
enemy, or even JSB.

BTW, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - Don Quixote.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:22:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"me" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:10:10 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Well I owned two of those cars (one Sable, one Taurus). Neither had
>>>electrical problems and neither had transmission problems. I sold the
>>>Sable to a friend when it had 1400k miles. He drove it for another 60K
>>>miles and only got rid of it when it was totaled in an accident.
>>>
>>>"Taurus" has a lot of name recognition. There are millions of happy
>>>Taurus owners out there. I don't think I would have reused the name on
>>>the Five Hundred, but I suspect Ford researched this decision a lot
>>>better than I could and decided it was a good thing to do. Most of the
>>>people who say bad things about a Taurus, never actually owned one....
>>>
>>
>> There are also millions of very unhappy Taurus owners. They should
>> have picked a new name.
>>
>> As for never owning one, my Mom had one and two of my close friends
>> had one. All had tranny problems at ~ 70k miles. I'm familiar with the
>> details of their repairs, the costs, etc.
>
>What model years? I had a 92 with no tranny problems by 130K. Other stupid
>****, but no tranny problems, and I even towed a small boat with mine. It
>was the 6 cylinder model.
>
>
Beyond the tranny problems, if it was a 3.0 you were likely OK but the
3.8 engine was a time bomb. It wasn't a question IF you would have
serious problems, but when.

And then there were the early ones who's front subframes dropped out
because the washers on the rubber mounts rusted off. Not to mention
the bottoms rotted off them (even the later models) at a rediculous
rate. My brother had 2 of them, and several friends had them as well -
both Taurus and Sable.
NONE were particularly happy with the cars long term.

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:22:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"me" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:10:10 -0500, "C. E. White"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well I owned two of those cars (one Sable, one Taurus). Neither had
>>>>electrical problems and neither had transmission problems. I sold the
>>>>Sable to a friend when it had 1400k miles. He drove it for another 60K
>>>>miles and only got rid of it when it was totaled in an accident.
>>>>
>>>>"Taurus" has a lot of name recognition. There are millions of happy
>>>>Taurus owners out there. I don't think I would have reused the name on
>>>>the Five Hundred, but I suspect Ford researched this decision a lot
>>>>better than I could and decided it was a good thing to do. Most of the
>>>>people who say bad things about a Taurus, never actually owned one....
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are also millions of very unhappy Taurus owners. They should
>>> have picked a new name.
>>>
>>> As for never owning one, my Mom had one and two of my close friends
>>> had one. All had tranny problems at ~ 70k miles. I'm familiar with the
>>> details of their repairs, the costs, etc.
>>
>>What model years? I had a 92 with no tranny problems by 130K. Other stupid
>>****, but no tranny problems, and I even towed a small boat with mine. It
>>was the 6 cylinder model.
>>
>>
> Beyond the tranny problems, if it was a 3.0 you were likely OK but the
> 3.8 engine was a time bomb. It wasn't a question IF you would have
> serious problems, but when.
>
> And then there were the early ones who's front subframes dropped out
> because the washers on the rubber mounts rusted off. Not to mention
> the bottoms rotted off them (even the later models) at a rediculous
> rate. My brother had 2 of them, and several friends had them as well -
> both Taurus and Sable.
> NONE were particularly happy with the cars long term.


I wonder if my luck with the tranny was also due to my mechanic, who nagged
me to stay one step ahead of the scheduled tranny maintenance, specifically
because I was towing with the car. When this guy retires, I'm probably going
to switch to riding a horse.

On Dec 12, 8:02 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:26:57 -0500, Tomes wrote:
> > "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" ...
> >> PeterD wrote:
> >>> "JoeSpareBedroom"
> >>>>When do you think this 100K design trend began? I'm just curious.
>
> >>> I was told expected battery life was the limiting factor.
>
> >> Actually, yup. The lifetime of the battery is about 120,000 miles. Then
> >> you take it to the dealer and have another one installed.
>
> > Only if it actually needs it. Time will tell....
> > Tomes
>
> That's the word from Toyota. Remember, I used to work for a dealer. Of
> course, we're talking an imperfect technology here. The batteries may
> actually wear out prior to 120,000 miles, depending upon use.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know if they are warranteed to last 120,000 miles.

Yet, I haven't read anything that indicates that the batteries are not
good for a longer lifespan. Toyota and Honda were really conservative
with the batteries when they first came out. For example, they kept
the charge within a really narrow window, something like between 60
and 80% charge, until they had real-life experience to guide future
battery usage.

Jeff

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:20:16 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> > wrote:
>
>> The Taurus is performing at
>>Toyota quality level. Even Consumer Reports has taken notice of the
>>changes.
>>
>>A friend of mine traded-in his unreliable 1998 Toyota Camry for a 2008
>>Taurus, and he's says it's the best car he's ever owned. It's only one
>>that
>>didn't have to go back to the dealer right away to have something fixed!
>
> Yes... reuse the model name from a car that has serious electrical
> issues and trannys that all died at 72K miles. Brilliant marketing
> move... they're appealing to the "I want a car with a suck reputation"
> segment.

I've owned three older Sables (1996, 2001, 2005), and not ONE of them had
any "serious electrical issues". I did have one whose Tranny went around
100,000 miles. Of the other two Sables, one tranny's was still going strong
when I sold it at around 128,000 miles, and the other one is still fine at
50,000 miles.

Derek

"Dillon Pyron" > wrote in message > C&D had a
test of the Ford 500 a few years back. They liked the drive
> train (of course, it was a Volvo S60), but commented that the interior
> was "Ford fit and finish".
> --
> - dillon I am not invalid

That was from an Oct. 2004 "first drive" review, which might not have even
been a production vehicle. In any case, the current Taurus is considerably
better. Even Car and Driver now says so.

Derek

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:24:18 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:22:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"me" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:10:10 -0500, "C. E. White"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well I owned two of those cars (one Sable, one Taurus). Neither had
>>>>>electrical problems and neither had transmission problems. I sold the
>>>>>Sable to a friend when it had 1400k miles. He drove it for another 60K
>>>>>miles and only got rid of it when it was totaled in an accident.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Taurus" has a lot of name recognition. There are millions of happy
>>>>>Taurus owners out there. I don't think I would have reused the name on
>>>>>the Five Hundred, but I suspect Ford researched this decision a lot
>>>>>better than I could and decided it was a good thing to do. Most of the
>>>>>people who say bad things about a Taurus, never actually owned one....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are also millions of very unhappy Taurus owners. They should
>>>> have picked a new name.
>>>>
>>>> As for never owning one, my Mom had one and two of my close friends
>>>> had one. All had tranny problems at ~ 70k miles. I'm familiar with the
>>>> details of their repairs, the costs, etc.
>>>
>>>What model years? I had a 92 with no tranny problems by 130K. Other stupid
>>>****, but no tranny problems, and I even towed a small boat with mine. It
>>>was the 6 cylinder model.
>>>
>>>
>> Beyond the tranny problems, if it was a 3.0 you were likely OK but the
>> 3.8 engine was a time bomb. It wasn't a question IF you would have
>> serious problems, but when.
>>
>> And then there were the early ones who's front subframes dropped out
>> because the washers on the rubber mounts rusted off. Not to mention
>> the bottoms rotted off them (even the later models) at a rediculous
>> rate. My brother had 2 of them, and several friends had them as well -
>> both Taurus and Sable.
>> NONE were particularly happy with the cars long term.
>
>
>I wonder if my luck with the tranny was also due to my mechanic, who nagged
>me to stay one step ahead of the scheduled tranny maintenance, specifically
>because I was towing with the car. When this guy retires, I'm probably going
>to switch to riding a horse.
>
Then you'll have to find a good vet!!!
Maintenance CAN prolong the life of even a Taurus - but there were
some issues that even preventative maintenance could NOT stave off -
particularly on the 3.8.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:36:08 -0800, Jeff wrote:

> On Dec 12, 8:02 pm, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク > wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:26:57 -0500, Tomes wrote:
>> > "Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" ...
>> >> PeterD wrote:
>> >>> "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> >>>>When do you think this 100K design trend began? I'm just curious.
>>
>> >>> I was told expected battery life was the limiting factor.
>>
>> >> Actually, yup. The lifetime of the battery is about 120,000 miles. Then
>> >> you take it to the dealer and have another one installed.
>>
>> > Only if it actually needs it. Time will tell....
>> > Tomes
>>
>> That's the word from Toyota. Remember, I used to work for a dealer. Of
>> course, we're talking an imperfect technology here. The batteries may
>> actually wear out prior to 120,000 miles, depending upon use.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't know if they are warranteed to last 120,000 miles.
>
> Yet, I haven't read anything that indicates that the batteries are not
> good for a longer lifespan. Toyota and Honda were really conservative
> with the batteries when they first came out. For example, they kept
> the charge within a really narrow window, something like between 60
> and 80% charge, until they had real-life experience to guide future
> battery usage.
>
> Jeff


Yeah, I remember hearing this. Also, it helps the batteries to last
longer, IIRC.

Derek Gee wrote:
> "me" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:20:16 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The Taurus is performing at
>>> Toyota quality level. Even Consumer Reports has taken notice of the
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> A friend of mine traded-in his unreliable 1998 Toyota Camry for a 2008
>>> Taurus, and he's says it's the best car he's ever owned. It's only one
>>> that
>>> didn't have to go back to the dealer right away to have something fixed!
>> Yes... reuse the model name from a car that has serious electrical
>> issues and trannys that all died at 72K miles. Brilliant marketing
>> move... they're appealing to the "I want a car with a suck reputation"
>> segment.
>
> I've owned three older Sables (1996, 2001, 2005), and not ONE of them had
> any "serious electrical issues". I did have one whose Tranny went around
> 100,000 miles. Of the other two Sables, one tranny's was still going strong
> when I sold it at around 128,000 miles, and the other one is still fine at
> 50,000 miles.
>
> Derek
>
I would blame the investment bankers which caused the credit freeze.