http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* I fixed my door! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/ae31213d72eeef25?hl=en
* What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road? - 23 messages, 12
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/7483cc33ad80a6fb?hl=en
* '98 Frontier cranks but won't start. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/53872f508231fe36?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I fixed my door!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/ae31213d72eeef25?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 26 2009 8:11 pm
From: Louis
Plague Boy wrote:
> Louis wrote:
>> Plague Boy wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> I'm still in shock. Anyhow, I hope this story helps somebody with
>>> the same problem.
>>
>> I traded the upper passenger hinge of my 92 SE-R with the lower
>> (sagging) drivers side hinge. Works like a charm
>
> I considered this. Although not a true "fix" in some regards (you just
> wind up with a different saggy door) I could have lived with it because
> I don't use the passenger door that ofter. The main drawback was the
> labor involved vs. the cost of the hinge ($40.00).
>
> Could you describe how you switched hinges? Did you have to remove
> the fenders? The doors?
>
> Thanks!
I had ordered the hinge from a Nissan dealership, but they sent the
wrong one...So I decided to just switch them instead of waiting another
3 weeks for them to get the right part. I removed the fender (not all
the way, about 7 screws) it took about 1 hour. The passenger door does
not sag since the sagging hinge is on top now, instead of the bottom on
the drivers side door.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 4:19 am
From: Plague Boy
Louis wrote:
> I had ordered the hinge from a Nissan dealership, but they sent the
> wrong one...So I decided to just switch them instead of waiting another
> 3 weeks for them to get the right part. I removed the fender (not all
> the way, about 7 screws) it took about 1 hour. The passenger door does
> not sag since the sagging hinge is on top now, instead of the bottom on
> the drivers side door.
Duh! That's right, the passenger door wouldn't sag. Well, I hope
mine is fixed now; I think the car is only good for another year
or so. The pieces falling off of it have grown larger in the past
few months <g>.
My local dealership was no help. I can't remember if they
couldn't get the hinge, insisted I had to buy both, or couldn't
guarantee the hinge would fit.
--
PB
"I suspect you're an arrogant little pissant who grew up in the
Red Bull generation." - CJW
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/7483cc33ad80a6fb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 8:04 am
From: "C. E. White"
A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
be a very low number to me. What do other think?
I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
but maybe I am an exception.
Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
Year Original Percent Total
Sold Sales On road On Road
1990 500000 33% 165000
1991 525000 38% 199500
1992 551250 43% 237038
1993 578813 48% 277830
1994 607753 53% 322109
1995 638141 58% 370122
1996 670048 63% 422130
1997 703550 68% 478414
1998 738728 72% 531884
1999 775664 76% 589505
2000 814447 80% 651558
2001 855170 84% 718343
2002 897928 88% 790177
2003 942825 91% 857970
2004 989966 93% 920668
2005 1039464 96% 997886
2006 1091437 97% 1058694
2007 1146009 98% 1123089
2008 1203310 99% 1191277
2009 1263475 99% 1250840
Total 16532977 80% 13154033
For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
year), but same percent still on the road:
1990 1263475 33% 416947
1991 1250840 38% 475319
1992 1238332 43% 532483
1993 1225949 48% 588455
1994 1213689 53% 643255
1995 1201552 58% 696900
1996 1189537 63% 749408
1997 1177641 68% 800796
1998 1165865 72% 839423
1999 1154206 76% 877197
2000 1142664 80% 914131
2001 1131238 84% 950240
2002 1119925 88% 985534
2003 1108726 91% 1008941
2004 1097639 93% 1020804
2005 1086662 96% 1043196
2006 1075796 97% 1043522
2007 1065038 98% 1043737
2008 1054387 99% 1043843
2009 1043843 99% 1033405
Total 23007003 73% 16707535
The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
in the two statements.
Ed
== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 8:15 am
From: "JoeSpareBedroom"
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be a
>very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last twenty
> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20
> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last
> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models.
> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more likely
> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the
> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the
> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually
> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars
> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am sure
> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over
> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in
> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers?
State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might
need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines & newspapers
can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", though. It
might cost money.
== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 8:42 am
From: "C. E. White"
"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:08EFm.33212$eJ4.26377@newsfe07.iad...
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of
>>all
>>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed
>>to be a
>>very low number to me. What do other think?
>>
>> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
>> twenty
>> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
>> last 20
>> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the
>> last
>> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer
>> models.
>> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more
>> likely
>> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in
>> the
>> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For
>> GM, the
>> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually
>> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their
>> cars
>> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I
>> am sure
>> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it
>> over
>> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it
>> in
>> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not
>> registered.
>>
>> Does anyone have any actual numbers?
>
>
> State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it
> might
> need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines &
> newspapers
> can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if",
> though. It
> might cost money.
I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has
amassed the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL
Polk is in the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming
longevity often reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim,
but I can't access the raw data without paying for it. I was hoping
there was an open source (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version,
available to the public. Without being to actually see the data, it is
hard to know how to treat the claims based on the data. I once wrote
Chevy and asked about their claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting
most reliable trucks. All they said was that it was based on RL Polk
registration data for a particualr period. Of course without actually
ahving access to the data, I can't see how the claim means anything.
Even worse, even if I had the raw registration data, I doubt it is
meaningful unless you also know how the trucks were actully used. I
always assumed that a higher percentage of Chevy trucks were purchased
by suburban users than was the case for Ford (i.e., more Fords were in
commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and therefore the Chevy trucks
were more liekly to be gently used, better cared for, and used less,
so therefore registration data byear alone would tend to suggest they
lasted longer... which might not really be true for vehicles used in
the same manner by similar populations of users.
I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"
sums up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration
data. I've always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data,
but that they have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer
builds perfect vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data,
sooner of later someone is going to demand to see the bad data as
well, and use a lawsuit to pry it out into the open. Better to make
unverifiable claims based on third party information that can be
checked but don't actually prove anything.
I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of
the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am
also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it
sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of
marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be
more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.
Ed
== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 8:55 am
From: "David"
Here in the UK the Government is trying to get older cars off the road.
If you buy a new car and scrap your present one of 10 years or older they
give you £2000. I think in Europe is £3000 ( in Euros of course.)
--
Regards,
David
FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.
== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 8:58 am
From: "JoeSpareBedroom"
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4ae71565$1@kcnews01...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:08EFm.33212$eJ4.26377@newsfe07.iad...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>>>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>>>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be
>>>a
>>>very low number to me. What do other think?
>>>
>>> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
>>> twenty
>>> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20
>>> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last
>>> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models.
>>> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more
>>> likely
>>> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the
>>> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM,
>>> the
>>> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually
>>> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars
>>> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am
>>> sure
>>> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over
>>> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in
>>> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any actual numbers?
>>
>>
>> State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might
>> need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines &
>> newspapers
>> can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", though
>> It
>> might cost money.
>
> I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has amassed
> the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL Polk is in
> the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming longevity often
> reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim, but I can't access the
> raw data without paying for it. I was hoping there was an open source
> (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version, available to the public.
> Without being to actually see the data, it is hard to know how to treat
> the claims based on the data. I once wrote Chevy and asked about their
> claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting most reliable trucks. All they
> said was that it was based on RL Polk registration data for a particualr
> period. Of course without actually ahving access to the data, I can't see
> how the claim means anything. Even worse, even if I had the raw
> registration data, I doubt it is meaningful unless you also know how the
> trucks were actully used. I always assumed that a higher percentage of
> Chevy trucks were purchased by suburban users than was the case for Ford
> (i.e., more Fords were in commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and
> therefore the Chevy trucks were more liekly to be gently used, better
> cared for, and used less, so therefore registration data byear alone would
> tend to suggest they lasted longer... which might not really be true for
> vehicles used in the same manner by similar populations of users.
>
> I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" sums
> up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration data. I've
> always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data, but that they
> have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer builds perfect
> vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data, sooner of later
> someone is going to demand to see the bad data as well, and use a lawsuit
> to pry it out into the open. Better to make unverifiable claims based on
> third party information that can be checked but don't actually prove
> anything.
>
> I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of the
> Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am also
> certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it sounds
> like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of marketing
> claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be more significant
> than it is. At least that is how I see it.
>
> Ed
>
Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
which answer your questions using that data.
While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 9:33 am
From: Tegger
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4ae70c7c$1
@kcnews01:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
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.
My personal guess, based on my visual observations while on the road each
day, is that overall the percentage of cars (not just Toyotas) still in
daily use after 20 years would be more like one to five percent.
I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars older
than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.
--
Tegger
== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 10:08 am
From: "Ray O"
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4ae70c7c$1@kcnews01...
>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be a
>very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last twenty
> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20
> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last
> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models.
> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more likely
> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the
> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the
> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually
> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars
> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am sure
> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over
> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in
> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the NEW
> vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road, but maybe
> I am an exception.
>
> Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
>
> For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
>
> Year Original Percent Total
> Sold Sales On road On Road
> 1990 500000 33% 165000
> 1991 525000 38% 199500
> 1992 551250 43% 237038
> 1993 578813 48% 277830
> 1994 607753 53% 322109
> 1995 638141 58% 370122
> 1996 670048 63% 422130
> 1997 703550 68% 478414
> 1998 738728 72% 531884
> 1999 775664 76% 589505
> 2000 814447 80% 651558
> 2001 855170 84% 718343
> 2002 897928 88% 790177
> 2003 942825 91% 857970
> 2004 989966 93% 920668
> 2005 1039464 96% 997886
> 2006 1091437 97% 1058694
> 2007 1146009 98% 1123089
> 2008 1203310 99% 1191277
> 2009 1263475 99% 1250840
> Total 16532977 80% 13154033
>
> For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per year),
> but same percent still on the road:
>
> 1990 1263475 33% 416947
> 1991 1250840 38% 475319
> 1992 1238332 43% 532483
> 1993 1225949 48% 588455
> 1994 1213689 53% 643255
> 1995 1201552 58% 696900
> 1996 1189537 63% 749408
> 1997 1177641 68% 800796
> 1998 1165865 72% 839423
> 1999 1154206 76% 877197
> 2000 1142664 80% 914131
> 2001 1131238 84% 950240
> 2002 1119925 88% 985534
> 2003 1108726 91% 1008941
> 2004 1097639 93% 1020804
> 2005 1086662 96% 1043196
> 2006 1075796 97% 1043522
> 2007 1065038 98% 1043737
> 2008 1054387 99% 1043843
> 2009 1043843 99% 1033405
> Total 23007003 73% 16707535
>
> The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
> significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20 years
> still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best meaningless, at
> worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always assumed that the
> Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks are the most
> reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data) are deliberately
> misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being espeically misleading, but I
> wonder how many people understand the ad? I'll bet many people think
> Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas are still on the road, instead
> of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years....isn't marketing
> wonderful. There is a huge difference in the two statements.
>
> Ed
>
Automakers generally don't come up with the various statements and claims
made in advertising. More often, it the automakers' ad agencies that come
up with the statements. Of course, auto executives have to approve the ads
In Toyota's case, I suspect that the ad is a counter to the Detroit 3's ads
citing various sources to show that their vehicles are the longest lasting.
The trend to cite statistics in advertising is probably the result of what
marketing professors have been teaching marketing majors in college.
The "80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road" implies
that other volume automakers have a lower volume, which could be the result
of the Cash for Clunkers program. Most of the vehicles traded in for the
program were supposed to get less than 18 MPG and be less than 25 years old
Other than the Land Cruiser, Tundra, and Sequoia, a very high proportion of
Toyotas sold in the last 20 years (probably greater than 80%) did not
qualify for the clunkers program because they got better than 18 MPG. The
Detroit 3's historical sales have been larger vehicles, so they may have had
disproportionate representation in the clunkers traded in, regardless of the
condition of the vehicles. I think something like 700,000 clunkers were
traded in, and if they were mostly Detroit 3 products, then that may have
been enough to sway the statistics in Toyota's favor.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 11:05 am
From: m6onz5a
On Oct 27, 11:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
> twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
> last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
> over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
> newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
> that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
> of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
> newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
> been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
> higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
> likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
> registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
> actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
> used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
> NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
> but maybe I am an exception.
>
> Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
>
> For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
>
> Year Original Percent Total
> Sold Sales On road On Road
> 1990 500000 33% 165000
> 1991 525000 38% 199500
> 1992 551250 43% 237038
> 1993 578813 48% 277830
> 1994 607753 53% 322109
> 1995 638141 58% 370122
> 1996 670048 63% 422130
> 1997 703550 68% 478414
> 1998 738728 72% 531884
> 1999 775664 76% 589505
> 2000 814447 80% 651558
> 2001 855170 84% 718343
> 2002 897928 88% 790177
> 2003 942825 91% 857970
> 2004 989966 93% 920668
> 2005 1039464 96% 997886
> 2006 1091437 97% 1058694
> 2007 1146009 98% 1123089
> 2008 1203310 99% 1191277
> 2009 1263475 99% 1250840
> Total 16532977 80% 13154033
>
> For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
> year), but same percent still on the road:
>
> 1990 1263475 33% 416947
> 1991 1250840 38% 475319
> 1992 1238332 43% 532483
> 1993 1225949 48% 588455
> 1994 1213689 53% 643255
> 1995 1201552 58% 696900
> 1996 1189537 63% 749408
> 1997 1177641 68% 800796
> 1998 1165865 72% 839423
> 1999 1154206 76% 877197
> 2000 1142664 80% 914131
> 2001 1131238 84% 950240
> 2002 1119925 88% 985534
> 2003 1108726 91% 1008941
> 2004 1097639 93% 1020804
> 2005 1086662 96% 1043196
> 2006 1075796 97% 1043522
> 2007 1065038 98% 1043737
> 2008 1054387 99% 1043843
> 2009 1043843 99% 1033405
> Total 23007003 73% 16707535
>
> The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
> significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
> years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
> meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
> assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
> are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
> are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
> espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
> I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
> are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
> twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
> in the two statements.
>
> Ed
All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
see any old ones on the road.
== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 12:19 pm
From: N8N
On Oct 27, 11:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
Somewhere I remember seeing stats of vehicle survival broken down by
mfgr - although I haven't a clue where I saw it now, and can't be
arsed to look at the moment. IIRC the longest-lived vehicles aren't
necessarily the ones you'd think - e.g. Porsche was near the top of
the list. (of course, I'm contributing to that stat myself, although
I also have a fairly aged F-150 as well.)
nate
== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 12:35 pm
From: Michael
On Oct 27, 8:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
> twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
> last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
> over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
> newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
> that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
> of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
> newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
> been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
> higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
> likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
> registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
> actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
> used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
> NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
> but maybe I am an exception.
>
> Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
>
> For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
>
> Year Original Percent Total
> Sold Sales On road On Road
> 1990 500000 33% 165000
> 1991 525000 38% 199500
> 1992 551250 43% 237038
> 1993 578813 48% 277830
> 1994 607753 53% 322109
> 1995 638141 58% 370122
> 1996 670048 63% 422130
> 1997 703550 68% 478414
> 1998 738728 72% 531884
> 1999 775664 76% 589505
> 2000 814447 80% 651558
> 2001 855170 84% 718343
> 2002 897928 88% 790177
> 2003 942825 91% 857970
> 2004 989966 93% 920668
> 2005 1039464 96% 997886
> 2006 1091437 97% 1058694
> 2007 1146009 98% 1123089
> 2008 1203310 99% 1191277
> 2009 1263475 99% 1250840
> Total 16532977 80% 13154033
>
> For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
> year), but same percent still on the road:
>
> 1990 1263475 33% 416947
> 1991 1250840 38% 475319
> 1992 1238332 43% 532483
> 1993 1225949 48% 588455
> 1994 1213689 53% 643255
> 1995 1201552 58% 696900
> 1996 1189537 63% 749408
> 1997 1177641 68% 800796
> 1998 1165865 72% 839423
> 1999 1154206 76% 877197
> 2000 1142664 80% 914131
> 2001 1131238 84% 950240
> 2002 1119925 88% 985534
> 2003 1108726 91% 1008941
> 2004 1097639 93% 1020804
> 2005 1086662 96% 1043196
> 2006 1075796 97% 1043522
> 2007 1065038 98% 1043737
> 2008 1054387 99% 1043843
> 2009 1043843 99% 1033405
> Total 23007003 73% 16707535
>
> The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
> significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
> years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
> meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
> assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
> are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
> are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
> espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
> I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
> are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
> twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
> in the two statements.
>
> Ed
You might try digging in the www.census.gov website.
Not sure how much this will help you: http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html
Good luck,
Michael
== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 12:41 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote:
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4ae70c7c$1
>@kcnews01:
>
>> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
>> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>>
>
>
>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.
>
>My personal guess, based on my visual observations while on the road each
>day, is that overall the percentage of cars (not just Toyotas) still in
>daily use after 20 years would be more like one to five percent.
>
>I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars older
>than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.
You need to read the claim.
80% of vehicles sold over the last 20 years are still on the road.
This could be true even if NO 20 year old Toyotas were still on the
road. There are still a significant number of 1989 Toyotas on the
road, particularly in the south, and California (where the majority
were sold in the beginning)
== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 12:46 pm
From: "hls"
"N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:55b0e47e-edb9-4ad9-
Somewhere I remember seeing stats of vehicle survival broken down by
mfgr - although I haven't a clue where I saw it now, and can't be
arsed to look at the moment. IIRC the longest-lived vehicles aren't
necessarily the ones you'd think - e.g. Porsche was near the top of
the list. (of course, I'm contributing to that stat myself, although
I also have a fairly aged F-150 as well.)
nate
**********
It doesnt surprise me, Nate.. Porsche went for long periods without
changing
the sheet metal, but rather spending time to improve the breed. They were
built to run, and were not shoddy tin heaps. And, when they break, they
usually have enough character that the owner will repair them.
Ferrari's have a similar tradition. Tough as nails, dont need repair often,
but expensive when you do. You dont see many Ferraris a Pick A Part.
We could probably compile a like list of cars that were not so expensive,
that the owners ran the crap out of them and left them "rode hard and put
up wet". And when they get sick, with time, there is limited interest in
keeping them up.
== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:11 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:04:36 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
>be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
>I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
>twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
>last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
>over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
>newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
>that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
>of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
>newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
>been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
>higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
>likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
>registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
>actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
>used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
>Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
>NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
>but maybe I am an exception.
>
As you say (snipped the rest for brevity) the ad is deceptive.
What else is new?
Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
longevity.
http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
"imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
R.L. Polk is a company that has access to state registration
databases.
http://usa.polk.com/Industries/Research/
"Polk Used Vehicle Registration Reports
Used vehicle registration statistics assist you with stocking
inventory, purchasing vehicles at auction as well as identifying
market trends and unveiling opportunities. The reports are completely
customizable you define the specifications, geography and
time-period."
I actually called them once to inquire about getting an extract of
registration data. Just to satisfy my curiosity about longevity and
as a tool in arguments.
It was too expensive for that purpose.
But with registration data and sales data, longevity is easy enough to
figure out. And it's not a high volume of data.
Make/Model/Year - maybe cylinders and color, depending on the state.
Perhaps 20 bytes max per car, depending.
Have to talk to the data guy who knows the format.
Breakdowns by state (rust belt vs non-rustbelt) could be done.
Of course there are built-in "unknowns" due to vehicles relocating
from state to state, but most stay home in one state.
Here's an example of why color could be useful, if only to satisfy
curiosity.
I've got a white '97 Lumina. Good runner, basically repair-free.
Just did a 3K mile trip to Florida with it. About 150k miles on it.
Thing is, a lot of these white Luminas suffer from peeling paint.
Comes off in big honking sheets, leaving the undercoat.
I stopped mine pretty early by pulling off the loose stuff and sealing
the edges and covering the primer with a few cans of spay paint.
Doesn't look very good when close, but I don't care.
I've seen a lot of these white Luminas with the poor paint.
Wonder how many get junked early because of that paint.
Most people just won't put up with that.
Just curious. But that's the type of thing that will show up in the
numbers. But you have to have the numbers.
Otherwise you're dealing with anecdotes.
--Vic
>
== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:29 pm
From: Hachiroku ハチロク
C. E. White wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.
And I personally own about half of them...
== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:31 pm
From: Tegger
clare@snyder.on.ca wrote in
news:ukiee517m0l7ll2rc32vbev430hrrep7v1@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars
>>older than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.
>
>
> You need to read the claim.
> 80% of vehicles sold over the last 20 years are still on the road.
> This could be true even if NO 20 year old Toyotas were still on the
> road. There are still a significant number of 1989 Toyotas on the
> road, particularly in the south, and California (where the majority
> were sold in the beginning)
>
That's why I said "unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here
[in the Rust Belt]". Sure, it's possible Toyota's figures are accurate if
you include the dry southwest. Cars stay rust-free for a /long/ time down
there.
Informal survey by myself today:
Mileage covered: about 100
Number of cars observed: thousands, I'm sure
Number of cars obviously over 20 years in age: one (~'85 Olds Cutlass)
Number of cars that were older than 1993: maybe 20
I would say that the overwhelming bulk of the cars I saw today were between
five and ten years old.
--
Tegger
== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:31 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:42:36 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of
>the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am
>also certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it
>sounds like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of
>marketing claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be
>more significant than it is. At least that is how I see it.
>
Didn't see this before I posted about R. L. Polk.
I don't feel as sure as you do about Toyota telling the "truth."
If that "truth" has no real relevance to me, or deceives me in any
way, it fails my test as "truth."
As you said about the Chevy trucks, even registration raw data can't
help.
One of my sons does truck front ends all day.
He knows more about trucks than any registration database.
You might think that a guy that plows snow with a Chevy 3/4 ton
knows about snow plowing with Chevy trucks.
You'd probably be wrong if you catch him early on.
My son could tell you that he has to fix them all the time because
they just can't handle a plow.
Sometimes accumulated "anecdotes" of real experience mean more than
"real" statistics.
A few honest high volume mechanics can provide more useful information
about real costs and repairs than the cloudy info found in Consumers
Reports.
Not knocking CR, as it has it uses, but there's more than one way to
skin a cat.
--Vic
== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:38 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>which answer your questions using that data.
>
>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
>
Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
best for their purpose.
If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
once in a while, just about any will do.
--Vic
== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:39 pm
From: "JoeSpareBedroom"
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bopee5dvn10i356ol5t69hkhrdfu2v3t9q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>>which answer your questions using that data.
>>
>>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog").
>>
> Uh, there are very distinct differences between Ford and Chevy trucks.
> Folks who use them for specific jobs - work - most often know which is
> best for their purpose.
> If you want a truck because it's "big and mean looking" compared to
> the Corolla, or to toss some 2x4's and drywall, or a TV in the bed
> once in a while, just about any will do.
>
> --Vic
Uh, your words do not qualify as data. Thanks for playing.
== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:44 pm
From: Tegger
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in
news:nvlee55gkcllskd40i4ts5rchckrrfh7pj@4ax.com:
> Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
> longevity.
> http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%2
> 0OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
>
> It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
> "imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
> No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
> analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
> the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
> they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
Another thing not covered in that Desrosiers document: Annual mileage. It's
one thing to have a vehicle still registered for the road, but quite
another to have it registered but rarely actually going anywhere.
A lot of much older cars get relegated to second or third-car status and
sit in the driveway a lot. People become unwilling to trust the old heap to
go very far without breaking down.
How many of those "80% of Toyotas still on the road" are actually still
covering close to the mileages they did when new? We'll never know, I
guess.
--
Tegger
== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:45 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
<corvair@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
>see any old ones on the road.
That's another problem with getting "real" and useful meaning from
registration figures.
Where I live in the burbs there's hardly any old cars. My '90 Corsica
might be the oldest car of the closest 200 cars around here.
I just use it for local trips, and wouldn't take it on the road.
But if I go about 10 miles into the north side of Chicago, I can see
all sorts of such cars parked on the streets.
Instead of 1 in 200, it's more like 1 in 10.
I assume that most are used like mine, and not real "highway cars."
But where you're at can make a huge difference in the age of cars you
see around you.
--Vic
== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:55 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:44:58 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote:
>Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:nvlee55gkcllskd40i4ts5rchckrrfh7pj@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
>> longevity.
>> http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%2
>> 0OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf
>>
>> It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
>> "imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
>> No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
>> analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
>> the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
>> they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.
>
>
>
>Another thing not covered in that Desrosiers document: Annual mileage. It's
>one thing to have a vehicle still registered for the road, but quite
>another to have it registered but rarely actually going anywhere.
>
Yep. And that's not kept on the state reg DB's either.
>A lot of much older cars get relegated to second or third-car status and
>sit in the driveway a lot. People become unwilling to trust the old heap to
>go very far without breaking down.
>
>How many of those "80% of Toyotas still on the road" are actually still
>covering close to the mileages they did when new? We'll never know, I
>guess.
Agree. My '90 Corisca has about 120k miles, but the last 5k has taken
about 5 years to put on.
And this year it's gone not more than a few hundred miles.
--Vic
== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 2:56 pm
From: Tegger
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in
news:84qee5tebrut4t6l2eka5roni4umotj2f0@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT), m6onz5a
> <corvair@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
>>see any old ones on the road.
>
> That's another problem with getting "real" and useful meaning from
> registration figures.
> Where I live in the burbs there's hardly any old cars. My '90 Corsica
> might be the oldest car of the closest 200 cars around here.
> I just use it for local trips, and wouldn't take it on the road.
> But if I go about 10 miles into the north side of Chicago, I can see
> all sorts of such cars parked on the streets.
Exactly the point I just made in another reply. Being registered for the
road does not correlate with actual use.
> Instead of 1 in 200, it's more like 1 in 10.
> I assume that most are used like mine, and not real "highway cars."
> But where you're at can make a huge difference in the age of cars you
> see around you.
Yep.
My '91 Integra, still very much a daily driver (with 332,000 miles on it),
is often the oldest car around, wherever I am.
--
Tegger
== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 27 2009 3:00 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:39:48 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:bopee5dvn10i356ol5t69hkhrdfu2v3t9q@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles
>>>which answer your questions using that data.
>>>
>>>While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit
>>>claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for
>>>particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog")
No comments:
Post a Comment