What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?

aemeijers wrote:
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steve Austin wrote:
>>>> hls wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Everytime I go shopping, I see quite a few cars and pickup trucks and
>>>>>> vans which date back to the 1970s, some of them are even older, on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> roads and in store parking lots.They are all American brand name
>>>>>> made in
>>>>>> America vehicles too.You just can't beat good old Detroit Iron.
>>>>>> cuhulin
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is one that everybody drooled over in our homecoming parade a
>>>>> week
>>>>> ago.. It is near perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/4406687...8668/?edited=1
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that in '57 Ford outsold Chevy.
>>>
>>> It's really hard to believe that the '53-56 Studebakers didn't sell
>>> like hotcakes, based on styling alone. Even a '57 Hawk makes a '57
>>> Chevy look stodgy and boring. (not knocking the Chevy, mind you -
>>> compared to the cars they were building just three years earlier
>>> they're freaking amazing.)
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> No doubt about it...The Hawks of both Studebaker and Packer were pretty
>> awesome creations.
> The original Raymond Loewy (sp?) design was clean and well ahead of its
> time. The later variants, where they grafted on the butt-ugly standup
> grille and even fins, not so much.
>
> --
> aem sends...

you got it right but it was actually Bob Bourke

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Dave wrote:

> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
> border.

It's very very different.

U.S. built vehicles made with high domestic content contribute a huge
amount of money to the U.S. economy, even if the stockholders of the
company are mostly outside the U.S.. Many of those vehicles are also
designed in the U.S..

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:34:52 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:51:25 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>>Tegger wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of
>>>> north-eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly
>>>> high, unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, there to a first approximation there are about as many Toyotas
>>>in the junkyards I prowl for parts here in Texas as there are any
>>>other brand. And this sure isn't the rust belt....
>>
>>
>
>> Up here in the rust belt I don't see many. Funny.
>>
>
>
>I don't know what wrecking yards you frequent, but my observation is
>identical to Steve's. Except that American makes are more prevalent in
>wrecking yards simply due to larger new-car sales.
>
The yards I frequent around Kitchener/Waterloo have lots of older
Hondas, and not so old Kias and Hyundais, along with PILES of GMs. a
few odd Chrysler and Fords. Very few Toyotas
Ford Escorts and Contour/Mystiques are getting more scarce - and the
contour/mystiques are generally going straight to the crusher.. Makes
it hard for me to find parts for mine.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" >
wrote:

>
>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:32:38 -0400, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
>>>> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues that
>>>> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords or
>>>> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much
>>>> greater
>>>> reliability.
>>>
>>>This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas
>>>have
>>>greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
>>>said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater reliability
>>>that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I certainly
>>>can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal experince
>>>that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American cars.
>>
>> You have to specify a model/engine.
>> What Toyota and Honda have done is concentrate on putting quality and
>> engineering in what they want to sell.
>> The domestic brands seldom do that.
>> That's why Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic have done well.
>> Although I believe the general public holds onto certain myths,
>> there's a basis in the Toyota/Honda myths.
>> With domestics you have to pick well, and if you're a new car buyer
>> hope it works out.
>> I'm a Chevy fan, but I buy used and know what I'm getting.
>> Spend very little per mile driven.
>> I'm sure the same can be done with Fords, but I don't know them.
>> But if I were to buy new, I might go for a Toyota or Honda.
>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>
> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>border.


Only if you are buying your USED Chevies from across the border
yourself. The manufacturer only gets paid for them ONCE.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:45:34 -0600, Vic Smith
> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>news
>
>>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>>
>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>>border.
>
>I was just guessing that the workers putting the cars together within
>our borders are getting paid for doing that.
>And that they spend some of their wages locally, providing even more
>work.
>Could be wrong though. Maybe having the middlemen just import a ready
>made product from a foreign country is better for the economy.
>That's what they say on Wall street I think.
>Pretty smart guys there.
>
>--Vic
You ARE joking, I hope (about the clowns on Wall Street being SMART?)

"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>news
>
>>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>>
>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>>border.
>
> I was just guessing that the workers putting the cars together within
> our borders are getting paid for doing that.
> And that they spend some of their wages locally, providing even more
> work.
> Could be wrong though.

Too bad what you wrote didn't more closely resemble what you were guessing.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:32:38 -0400, "C. E. White"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
>>>>> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues
>>>>> that
>>>>> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords
>>>>> or
>>>>> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much
>>>>> greater
>>>>> reliability.
>>>>
>>>>This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas
>>>>have
>>>>greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
>>>>said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater
>>>>reliability
>>>>that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I
>>>>certainly
>>>>can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal
>>>>experince
>>>>that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American
>>>>cars.
>>>
>>> You have to specify a model/engine.
>>> What Toyota and Honda have done is concentrate on putting quality and
>>> engineering in what they want to sell.
>>> The domestic brands seldom do that.
>>> That's why Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic have done well.
>>> Although I believe the general public holds onto certain myths,
>>> there's a basis in the Toyota/Honda myths.
>>> With domestics you have to pick well, and if you're a new car buyer
>>> hope it works out.
>>> I'm a Chevy fan, but I buy used and know what I'm getting.
>>> Spend very little per mile driven.
>>> I'm sure the same can be done with Fords, but I don't know them.
>>> But if I were to buy new, I might go for a Toyota or Honda.
>>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>>
>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>>border.
>
>
> Only if you are buying your USED Chevies from across the border
> yourself. The manufacturer only gets paid for them ONCE.

If you think no money from Toyota or Honda sales ends up in Japan, you are
as big a fool as you seem.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:01:07 -0500, "Dave" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:42 -0500, "Dave" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:32:38 -0400, "C. E. White"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem I see is that those rankings don't list the actual
>>>>>> percentages. They could be closely grouped together. No one argues
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Toyotas and Hondas have greater longevity and reliability than Fords
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> Chevys, the debate is over how much greater longevity and how much
>>>>>> greater
>>>>>> reliability.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a ridiculous claim. If you said, "I believe" Toyota and Hondas
>>>>>have
>>>>>greater reliability, then I coudn't argue about what you believe. If you
>>>>>said many people believe that Toyotas and Hondas have greater
>>>>>reliability
>>>>>that Fords and Chevies, then I'd actually agree with you. But I
>>>>>certainly
>>>>>can argue about the corretness of this belief. It is my personal
>>>>>experince
>>>>>that Toyotas and particualrly Hondas, are not as durable as American
>>>>>cars.
>>>>
>>>> You have to specify a model/engine.
>>>> What Toyota and Honda have done is concentrate on putting quality and
>>>> engineering in what they want to sell.
>>>> The domestic brands seldom do that.
>>>> That's why Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic have done well.
>>>> Although I believe the general public holds onto certain myths,
>>>> there's a basis in the Toyota/Honda myths.
>>>> With domestics you have to pick well, and if you're a new car buyer
>>>> hope it works out.
>>>> I'm a Chevy fan, but I buy used and know what I'm getting.
>>>> Spend very little per mile driven.
>>>> I'm sure the same can be done with Fords, but I don't know them.
>>>> But if I were to buy new, I might go for a Toyota or Honda.
>>>> Probably feel more secure about getting good engineering and a company
>>>> that stands behind their cars, and also because the Chevys are
>>>> foreign-built. I don't like sending money over the border.
>>>>
>>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>>>border.
>>
>>
>> Only if you are buying your USED Chevies from across the border
>> yourself. The manufacturer only gets paid for them ONCE.
>
>If you think no money from Toyota or Honda sales ends up in Japan, you are
>as big a fool as you seem.
Never said that, dude. Of course some does. As will maney from
Hummers go to China. The guy in question said he always bought USED
Chevies - and some dummy said that he was crazy to do that because
they were made "across the border" - by which I assume he meant in
Canada if he was a Yank, or in the USA if he was a Canuk.

When you are buying USEED it doesn't matter WHERE it was made, because
the manufacturer got their money from the FIRST purchacer, and ONLY
from the first purchacer.

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> Foreign built or foreign owned, either way money is going across the
>> border.
>
> It's very very different.
>
> U.S. built vehicles made with high domestic content contribute a huge
> amount of money to the U.S. economy, even if the stockholders of the
> company are mostly outside the U.S.. Many of those vehicles are also
> designed in the U.S..

Don't forget, even Americans can own Toyota stock (maybe not directly, but
it works out the same).

Ed

"Dave" > wrote in message
...

> If you think no money from Toyota or Honda sales ends up in Japan, you are
> as big a fool as you seem.

I know some money from Toyota and Honda ends up in Japan, but I also know
that money from Buick and Chevy sales ended up paying the ridiculously high
salaries of people like Rick Wagner....I am just not sure which should
disturb me more.

I also know there is a Toyota transmission plant in Durham, NC. The nearest
GM plant is so far away, I am not even sure where it is...Spring Hill TN I
guess (is it still open?). NC factories used to provide a lots of upholstrey
for US cars, but it sees "US" car companies are now buying a lot of this
from non-US suppliers. If GM is willing to buy from foreign suppliers,
doesn't that imply that I should be as well? If they can argue that to
remain competitive they have to purchase from foreign suppliers, can't I use
the same logic?

In my opinion, until US manufacturers quit buying from foreign suppliers,
there is no valid arguement that says I should purchase finished vehicles
from GM, or Ford becasue they ae "US" companies. I don't see much difference
in purchasing an F150 from Ford versus purchasing Toyota Tundra based solely
on who built it. I recently purchased an F150 because it was clearly the
superior vehicle (at least for my use). If the Tundra had suited me better,
I would have had no reservations about purchasing one becasue it was a
"Toyota."

Ed