2018 Chevy Silverado or 2018 Toyota 4 Runner

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE

It was up to Toyota to confirm that Dana Corp was making the frames properly. For whatever reason, Toyota trusted Dana Corp to keep their word, and make the frames properly. When the fact that the Dana Corp frames were made improperly came to light, Toyota rectified the situation. They replaced a lot of frames, and won a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Dana Corp.


They only agreed to replace the frames after a number of class action lawsuits. All quality manufacturers randomly sample supplier provided material to confirm it meets spec. This happened for over a decade and affected millions of vehicles.


And as I said, Toyota won a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Dana Corp, because Dana Corp lacked the integrity to make the frames properly.

I know of numerous people that have had the Bosch CP4.2 HPFP fail on their Ford Super Duty trucks. When there was NO trace of water in the fuel. Ford has denied warranty claims, and stuck formerly loyal Ford customers with 10k+ repair bills to replace the entire fuel system. At least GM, who used the same HPFP, stood behind their customers and replaced the failed Bosch CP4.2 HPFP's and associated parts under warranty.

I'll call out any Manufacturer that doesn't stand behind their product.

 

[4WD]

Winning a lawsuit can come down to who can afford the best legal team… we use hundreds of 3rd party suppliers but can’t hide behind them … you either have the QAQC oversight or not …
I’d have thrown them both out of the courthouse …

 

[02SE]

So what we've established is that every company has the potential to try and minimize their losses, usually at the cost to customers.

And one Ford loyalist who thinks that Toyota should be responsible for owner neglect of a vehicle that is AT LEAST 16 years old, and long past any corrosion warranty. While ignoring the evidence from his own link of his beloved brand building a vehicle from the same period that is now a rotted out hulk.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
The biggest difference is that a Ford explorer of the same vintage is likely on it's third transmission rebuild, and has already rusted out and been hauled to the junkyard. Did you see the rotted out Ford Explorer in your own link?

Meanwhile, the old Toyota that has been neglected as far as washing it in a corrosive environment, is still running fine on it's original drivetrain.

So comparing two vehicles of the same vintage that have been neglected:

Explorer = hauled off to the junkyard.

4Runner = people wanting to fix it because it still runs fine.


I see plenty of 90's Explorers around here in the land of road salt and the ones with the 5.0L/4R70W combination are extremely desirable, being a bomb-proof powertrain.

Sweet story though.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 02SE
The biggest difference is that a Ford explorer of the same vintage is likely on it's third transmission rebuild, and has already rusted out and been hauled to the junkyard. Did you see the rotted out Ford Explorer in your own link?

Meanwhile, the old Toyota that has been neglected as far as washing it in a corrosive environment, is still running fine on it's original drivetrain.

So comparing two vehicles of the same vintage that have been neglected:

Explorer = hauled off to the junkyard.

4Runner = people wanting to fix it because it still runs fine.


I see plenty of 90's Explorers around here in the land of road salt and the ones with the 5.0L/4R70W combination are extremely desirable, being a bomb-proof powertrain.

Sweet story though.


I see tons of 4Runners, all generations, on the roads at home, too. They are extremely popular because they offer 4wd for dealing with snow, and they just keep running. I noticed you didn't mention the 4.0 V6 Explorers.

Far more Explorers were sold in that timeframe of mid 90's to early 2000's, than the 4Runner. Yet where I live, there are very few Explorers of that vintage still on the roads.

The 'cash for clunkers' boondoggle, really thinned the herds of Ford Explorers from that era. Of course people only got rid of them, because they had problems.

Being in Canada, you likely wouldn't know that.

 

[4WD]

Combined 19 MPG and vehicle was not eligible for program …

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Combined 19 MPG and vehicle was not eligible for program …


And?

Cash for Clunkers trade-ins

 

[4WD]

And F150 and Chevy trucks were in the top ten and a bunch of “appliances” were sold … And?

You have taken the OP’s thread to offshore Somalia …

 

[02SE]

^^^^^

Sorry if what I said about Explorers proved to be factual..

As for taking the thread to offshore Somalia, I'd say that distinction belongs to 'Ben99GT', for introducing a specious argument.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 02SE

I see tons of 4Runners, all generations, on the roads at home, too. They are extremely popular because they offer 4wd for dealing with snow, and they just keep running. I noticed you didn't mention the 4.0 V6 Explorers.


Most Explorers; I would say the vast majority, are 4x4 up here as well. I didn't mention the 4.0L because it is not as highly coveted as the 5.0L version, however the SOHC and OHV 4.0L versions likely make up the majority on the road. The 4.0L SOHC of course had the rear timing chain issue, but the 4.0L OHV was extremely reliable, albeit quite thirsty (I owned a '97, which was then owned by two of my sisters and went to well over 200,000 miles, it was on its 2nd lovely French transmission).

Originally Posted By: 02SE
Far more Explorers were sold in that timeframe of mid 90's to early 2000's, than the 4Runner. Yet where I live, there are very few Explorers of that vintage still on the roads.
The 'cash for clunkers' boondoggle, really thinned the herds of Ford Explorers from that era. Of course people only got rid of them, because they had problems.

Being in Canada, you likely wouldn't know that.


Yes, and I'm sure there were far more Explorers, particularly base-model XL variants, bounced from one owner to the next as inexpensive transportation than was the case for the 4Runner, which, being a Toyota, would have cost considerably more, and held resale better as well. It would not surprise me that, in that context, far more of them would have ended up being Cash-for-Clunker'd than a rarer and more coveted 4Runner.

 

[4WD]

So you drive narrative with something that does not fit… they traded a bunch of large (lots of 4WD) vehicles on small economic sedans … they did not trade them on your favorite vehicle …
You know nothing about the history of the vehicles traded.

As for the OP … he is looking at fairly different vehicles that actually have something in common … they are both good vehicles … and he’s not looking at really old stuff either …

Here is one of the death row line ups … those don’t look like 2009 models to me … probably a few miles on the clocks …

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
So you drive narrative with something that does not fit… they traded a bunch of large (lots of 4WD) vehicles on small economic sedans … they did not trade them on your favorite vehicle …
You know nothing about the history of the vehicles traded.

As for the OP … he is looking at fairly different vehicles that actually have something in common … they are both good vehicles … and he’s not looking at really old stuff either …

Here is one of the death row line ups … those don’t look like 2009 models to me … probably a few miles on the clocks …







I'll spell it out for you:

The Toyota 4Runner is one of the vehicles mentioned in the title of this thread.

A member wondered if the 4Runner was a part of the Dana Corp frame debacle.

I answered that it was not.

THEN another member tried to make a specious argument about old, neglected 4Runners.

I simply corrected him.

Others, including you, jumped in for some reason.

You have no idea what my favorite vehicle is. It hasn't been mentioned in this thread.

I do know about lots of vehicles that were destroyed under 'cash for clunkers' by friends and former colleagues, as I used to work in consumer automotive repair. All of the vehicles that friends were forced to destroy, invariable had issues. Which is why they were traded in under 'cash for clunkers'.

Your picture is meant to prove what? I posted a link to the top ten most destroyed vehicles under 'Cash for clunkers' according to the Transportation Department. The Ford Explorer accounts for 6 spots in the top ten, including the top four spots. Another Ford on the list and the other three spots were Chrysler products. Those are simply the facts.

 

[4WD]

What is so hard about they all traded non cars for small cars … the vehicles had to be eligible …
Not much different from what SK cars are now doing to Toyota … just an underselling deal like when Pennzoil gave away free oil on this site … this gig under the auspices of MPG …
The point of the picture is there are some dependable vehicles in that … only they are not high MPG
The year was 2009 … those units are pretty old by many folks standards …
As for jumping in … send private notes if you don’t like that …

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
What is so hard about they all traded non cars for small cars … the vehicles had to be eligible …
Not much different from what SK cars are now doing to Toyota … just an underselling deal like when Pennzoil gave away free oil on this site … this gig under the auspices of MPG …
The point of the picture is there are some dependable vehicles in that … only they are not high MPG
The year was 2009 … those units are pretty old by many folks standards …
As for jumping in … send private notes if you don’t like that …


Clearly you are missing the point.

Go back and read through the thread to understand, if you're so concerned.

 

[4WD]

I’m not backing any vehicles. I just question a lawsuit (been on jury duty lately) and a boondoggle (check the cast of characters) as barometers …

 

[zfasts03]

BTW, I bought the T4R 3years ago. Love it. Thanks for the discussion.