TRUCK RECALL?!?!?!?

jim beam wrote:

>
> but you're confusing frames with driveshafts. different materials.

In the newsgroup I am posting to nobody has until now has mentioned
anything about steel frames.

The first post in the thread that i see said:

"I think I heard they're recalling Toyota trucks
because the front propellor shaft can separate
(probably at the U-joint...)"


>
> > Did you know
> > what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
> > ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
> > usa casting." ?
>
> actually, i know quite a bit about steel production and processing.
> someone would need a real special reason to import ingot from japan.
> commodity "ductile iron" ain't it.

It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.

-jim


>
> >
> >
> >
> >> the materials use in manufacture are not the same in both.
> >>
> >> --
> >> nomina rutrum rutrum
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum

On 02/15/2010 06:40 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> but you're confusing frames with driveshafts. different materials.
>
> In the newsgroup I am posting to nobody has until now has mentioned
> anything about steel frames.

then you're not reading the thread!


>
> The first post in the thread that i see said:
>
> "I think I heard they're recalling Toyota trucks
> because the front propellor shaft can separate
> (probably at the U-joint...)"

see above.


>
>
>>
>>> Did you know
>>> what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
>>> ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
>>> usa casting." ?
>>
>> actually, i know quite a bit about steel production and processing.
>> someone would need a real special reason to import ingot from japan.
>> commodity "ductile iron" ain't it.
>
> It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
> know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
> is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.

whoa. wow. evidently you simply don't know what you don't know. but
we already know you've not read this thread or you'd have bothered with
the cites i gave earlier.


>
> -jim
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> the materials use in manufacture are not the same in both.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 02/15/2010 05:49 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 02/13/2010 04:19 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> ....This is not as major a recall as the frames; the first round
>>>> was
>>>> 1996 or 97 to 2003, huundreds of thousands of trucks Toyota bought
>>>> back
>>>> for 150% of Kelley Blue Book, but a lot of them promptly bought a
>>>> new
>>>> Tacoma...
>>>>
>>>> Only to find out a year or two later it ALSO had a Dana frame that
>>>> could
>>>> rot prematurely!
>>>
>>> Dana makes frames for lots of companies. Why does it seem only the
>>> Toyota frames are so bad there are recalls for them?
>>>
>>> Google the following:
>>> * rusting Toyota frame recall - 3,420,000 hits
>>> * rusting Ford frame recall - 478,000 hits, and most were actually
>>> talking about the Toyota rusting frames
>>> * rusting Chevrolet frame recall - 1,840,00 hits, and again most of
>>> them
>>> were actually talking about Rusting Toyota frames
>>>
>>> Try it for yourself...
>>>
>>> Given the fact that Ford and Chevrolet have each sold more than 10
>>> times
>>> as many trucks as Toyota, don't you think if they had the same sort
>>> of
>>> problem with rusting frames, there be more complaints about them on
>>> the
>>> internet?
>>>
>>> You guys need to quit drinking the Toyota kool-aid. They have
>>> repeatedly
>>> shown disregard for there Customer and have to be dragged kicking
>>> and
>>> screaming into doing the right thing.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> frod just buries their mistakes. literally.
>
> OK, so let's say Ford is horrible. Does this excuse Toyota for being
> worse?

does it excuse toyota from ****ing up? no, of course not. but it's an
artful strawman you're using there dude - to use a logical "yes" to
insert a specific untruth - toyota are not worse then frod.


> For years some people have been sold the idea that Toyotas had
> exceptional quality. I never believed it (but I don't think Toyotas
> are particularly bad either). Now, when it has become apparent that
> Toyota has problems just like every other manufacturer, some people
> try to defend Toyota by pointing out that other manufacturers have had
> recalls also. So what? How this make Toyota look good? Throwing mud at
> Ford or GM isn't going to fix one Toyota. Pretending that Toyota
> doesn't have problems is encouraging Toyota executives to continue
> there past deceitful practices.

let's get this straight - frod have killed hundreds. the current toyota
[voluntary] "recall" involves two vehicles, and the idiot factor
[apparent inability to select neutral, use brakes or turn off ignition]
is being completely ignored. and yet here you are trying to paint
hundreds killed as a result of frod's financial ruthlessness with two
idiot factors as if they're equal.

either you're delusional, or you're trying to be deliberately deceitful.
given the strawman you used above, i'd say the latter.


>
>
> Ed
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 02/15/2010 06:40 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> but you're confusing frames with driveshafts. different materials.
> >
> > In the newsgroup I am posting to nobody has until now has mentioned
> > anything about steel frames.
>
> then you're not reading the thread!

Or maybe you are hallucinating.

>
> >
> > The first post in the thread that i see said:
> >
> > "I think I heard they're recalling Toyota trucks
> > because the front propellor shaft can separate
> > (probably at the U-joint...)"
>
> see above.

see above

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Did you know
> >>> what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
> >>> ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
> >>> usa casting." ?
> >>
> >> actually, i know quite a bit about steel production and processing.
> >> someone would need a real special reason to import ingot from japan.
> >> commodity "ductile iron" ain't it.
> >
> > It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
> > know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
> > is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.
>
> whoa. wow. evidently you simply don't know what you don't know. but
> we already know you've not read this thread or you'd have bothered with
> the cites i gave earlier.

How does that make the foolish statement I was responding to any less
foolish?

On 02/15/2010 09:00 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 02/15/2010 06:40 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> but you're confusing frames with driveshafts. different materials.
>>>
>>> In the newsgroup I am posting to nobody has until now has mentioned
>>> anything about steel frames.
>>
>> then you're not reading the thread!
>
> Or maybe you are hallucinating.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The first post in the thread that i see said:
>>>
>>> "I think I heard they're recalling Toyota trucks
>>> because the front propellor shaft can separate
>>> (probably at the U-joint...)"
>>
>> see above.
>
> see above
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did you know
>>>>> what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
>>>>> ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
>>>>> usa casting." ?
>>>>
>>>> actually, i know quite a bit about steel production and processing.
>>>> someone would need a real special reason to import ingot from japan.
>>>> commodity "ductile iron" ain't it.
>>>
>>> It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
>>> know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
>>> is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.
>>
>> whoa. wow. evidently you simply don't know what you don't know. but
>> we already know you've not read this thread or you'd have bothered with
>> the cites i gave earlier.
>
> How does that make the foolish statement I was responding to any less
> foolish?

it doesn't make your statement less foolish dude. "ductile iron" is
very much a commodity. you'd know that if you knew about iron/steel.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
> On 02/13/2010 04:19 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> "Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> ....This is not as major a recall as the frames; the first round was
>>> 1996 or 97 to 2003, huundreds of thousands of trucks Toyota bought back
>>> for 150% of Kelley Blue Book, but a lot of them promptly bought a new
>>> Tacoma...
>>>
>>> Only to find out a year or two later it ALSO had a Dana frame that could
>>> rot prematurely!
>>
>> Dana makes frames for lots of companies. Why does it seem only the
>> Toyota frames are so bad there are recalls for them?
>>


Because only the Toyota frames were built to Toyota's specifications.
Which were obviously inadequate.

The Tundra is deader than 1980's thanksgiving turkey. Stick a fork in it.

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/15/2010 05:49 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 02/13/2010 04:19 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> ....This is not as major a recall as the frames; the first round
>>>>> was
>>>>> 1996 or 97 to 2003, huundreds of thousands of trucks Toyota
>>>>> bought
>>>>> back
>>>>> for 150% of Kelley Blue Book, but a lot of them promptly bought
>>>>> a
>>>>> new
>>>>> Tacoma...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only to find out a year or two later it ALSO had a Dana frame
>>>>> that
>>>>> could
>>>>> rot prematurely!
>>>>
>>>> Dana makes frames for lots of companies. Why does it seem only
>>>> the
>>>> Toyota frames are so bad there are recalls for them?
>>>>
>>>> Google the following:
>>>> * rusting Toyota frame recall - 3,420,000 hits
>>>> * rusting Ford frame recall - 478,000 hits, and most were
>>>> actually
>>>> talking about the Toyota rusting frames
>>>> * rusting Chevrolet frame recall - 1,840,00 hits, and again most
>>>> of
>>>> them
>>>> were actually talking about Rusting Toyota frames
>>>>
>>>> Try it for yourself...
>>>>
>>>> Given the fact that Ford and Chevrolet have each sold more than
>>>> 10
>>>> times
>>>> as many trucks as Toyota, don't you think if they had the same
>>>> sort
>>>> of
>>>> problem with rusting frames, there be more complaints about them
>>>> on
>>>> the
>>>> internet?
>>>>
>>>> You guys need to quit drinking the Toyota kool-aid. They have
>>>> repeatedly
>>>> shown disregard for there Customer and have to be dragged kicking
>>>> and
>>>> screaming into doing the right thing.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> frod just buries their mistakes. literally.
>>
>> OK, so let's say Ford is horrible. Does this excuse Toyota for
>> being
>> worse?
>
> does it excuse toyota from ****ing up? no, of course not. but it's
> an artful strawman you're using there dude - to use a logical "yes"
> to insert a specific untruth - toyota are not worse then frod.
>
>
>> For years some people have been sold the idea that Toyotas had
>> exceptional quality. I never believed it (but I don't think Toyotas
>> are particularly bad either). Now, when it has become apparent that
>> Toyota has problems just like every other manufacturer, some people
>> try to defend Toyota by pointing out that other manufacturers have
>> had
>> recalls also. So what? How this make Toyota look good? Throwing mud
>> at
>> Ford or GM isn't going to fix one Toyota. Pretending that Toyota
>> doesn't have problems is encouraging Toyota executives to continue
>> there past deceitful practices.
>
> let's get this straight - frod have killed hundreds. the current
> toyota [voluntary] "recall" involves two vehicles, and the idiot
> factor [apparent inability to select neutral, use brakes or turn off
> ignition] is being completely ignored. and yet here you are trying
> to paint hundreds killed as a result of frod's financial
> ruthlessness with two idiot factors as if they're equal.
>
> either you're delusional, or you're trying to be deliberately
> deceitful. given the strawman you used above, i'd say the latter.

Who is delusional - there are hundreds of complaints involving Toyotas
and unintended acceleration. It is simple to verify this go to
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/complaints/ and search away. There were
over 146 listed in just one vehcile speed control category for 2007
Toyota Camrys. Not every problem generates a NHTSA complaint, so for
every entry in the NHTSA database there are likely many more never
reported.

Ed

On 02/15/2010 12:30 PM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 02/15/2010 05:49 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 02/13/2010 04:19 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hachiroku > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> ....This is not as major a recall as the frames; the first round
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> 1996 or 97 to 2003, huundreds of thousands of trucks Toyota
>>>>>> bought
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> for 150% of Kelley Blue Book, but a lot of them promptly bought
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> Tacoma...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only to find out a year or two later it ALSO had a Dana frame
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> rot prematurely!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dana makes frames for lots of companies. Why does it seem only
>>>>> the
>>>>> Toyota frames are so bad there are recalls for them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Google the following:
>>>>> * rusting Toyota frame recall - 3,420,000 hits
>>>>> * rusting Ford frame recall - 478,000 hits, and most were
>>>>> actually
>>>>> talking about the Toyota rusting frames
>>>>> * rusting Chevrolet frame recall - 1,840,00 hits, and again most
>>>>> of
>>>>> them
>>>>> were actually talking about Rusting Toyota frames
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it for yourself...
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the fact that Ford and Chevrolet have each sold more than
>>>>> 10
>>>>> times
>>>>> as many trucks as Toyota, don't you think if they had the same
>>>>> sort
>>>>> of
>>>>> problem with rusting frames, there be more complaints about them
>>>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>> internet?
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys need to quit drinking the Toyota kool-aid. They have
>>>>> repeatedly
>>>>> shown disregard for there Customer and have to be dragged kicking
>>>>> and
>>>>> screaming into doing the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> frod just buries their mistakes. literally.
>>>
>>> OK, so let's say Ford is horrible. Does this excuse Toyota for
>>> being
>>> worse?
>>
>> does it excuse toyota from ****ing up? no, of course not. but it's
>> an artful strawman you're using there dude - to use a logical "yes"
>> to insert a specific untruth - toyota are not worse then frod.
>>
>>
>>> For years some people have been sold the idea that Toyotas had
>>> exceptional quality. I never believed it (but I don't think Toyotas
>>> are particularly bad either). Now, when it has become apparent that
>>> Toyota has problems just like every other manufacturer, some people
>>> try to defend Toyota by pointing out that other manufacturers have
>>> had
>>> recalls also. So what? How this make Toyota look good? Throwing mud
>>> at
>>> Ford or GM isn't going to fix one Toyota. Pretending that Toyota
>>> doesn't have problems is encouraging Toyota executives to continue
>>> there past deceitful practices.
>>
>> let's get this straight - frod have killed hundreds. the current
>> toyota [voluntary] "recall" involves two vehicles, and the idiot
>> factor [apparent inability to select neutral, use brakes or turn off
>> ignition] is being completely ignored. and yet here you are trying
>> to paint hundreds killed as a result of frod's financial
>> ruthlessness with two idiot factors as if they're equal.
>>
>> either you're delusional, or you're trying to be deliberately
>> deceitful. given the strawman you used above, i'd say the latter.
>
> Who is delusional - there are hundreds of complaints involving Toyotas
> and unintended acceleration. It is simple to verify this go to
> http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/complaints/ and search away. There were
> over 146 listed in just one vehcile speed control category for 2007
> Toyota Camrys. Not every problem generates a NHTSA complaint, so for
> every entry in the NHTSA database there are likely many more never
> reported.

what about the HUNDREDS of frod DEATHS? why have you NOTHING to say
about that? if you had any integrity or sense of proportion, and
judging you your current ranting, you should be going postal over that
one, but instead you're frighteningly silent. could it /possibly/ be
that you're simply whoring out your internet "opinion" for money?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:


> >>> It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
> >>> know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
> >>> is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.
> >>
> >> whoa. wow. evidently you simply don't know what you don't know. but
> >> we already know you've not read this thread or you'd have bothered with
> >> the cites i gave earlier.
> >
> > How does that make the foolish statement I was responding to any less
> > foolish?
>
> it doesn't make your statement less foolish dude. "ductile iron" is
> very much a commodity. you'd know that if you knew about iron/steel.

In your fantasy world that may be, but not in the real world.

On 02/15/2010 02:41 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>>>> It doesn't sound like you know much about steel. You definitely don't
>>>>> know much about cast irons either. Ductile iron is not a commodity it
>>>>> is material that is produced as a result of the casting process.
>>>>
>>>> whoa. wow. evidently you simply don't know what you don't know. but
>>>> we already know you've not read this thread or you'd have bothered with
>>>> the cites i gave earlier.
>>>
>>> How does that make the foolish statement I was responding to any less
>>> foolish?
>>
>> it doesn't make your statement less foolish dude. "ductile iron" is
>> very much a commodity. you'd know that if you knew about iron/steel.
>
> In your fantasy world that may be, but not in the real world.

the only "fantasy" here is you having an opinion on a subject about
which you are clearly underinformed. "ductile iron" [in its multitude
of grades and qualities] is a cheap commodity produced in the millions
of tons each year. spending up to 30% of a component's value in
shipping makes no sense whatsoever.

almost certainly this is not a "ductile iron" component, but that
doesn't detract from you bull****ting about it.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum