On 1/29/2013 9:56 AM, John Miller wrote:
>>> I just dragged home a freebie '86 Celica beater that has better
>>> seats, better material quality, and better outward visibility than any
>>> present Toyota.
>>
>> And, your `86 Celica gets about 22-24 mpg overall. Don't kid a
>> kidder--I was a Toyota factory-trained, master line mechanic in the
>> `80s. I know the technology of that time.
>>
>> Good cars for the age, but, don't bullshit me.
>
> And please don't bullshit me. Read what I wrote.
>
> I said that '86 Celica had:
>
> a) better seats
> b) better material quality
> c) better outward visibility
>
> than any present Toyota.
And, it got much shittier mileage, and, maybe, the newer cars don't
because of changes to the overall configuration, including seats and the
shape of the envelope.
>
> Do you dispute those points? Please explain where I said anything
> about the powertrain or fuel economy.
You didn't. Which means you ignored the changes made for increased mileage.
>
> There's no question that there've been substantial changes (mostly but
> not all improvements) in powertrain technology since 1986.
>
> My original point still stands:
Does it? You whined about seating and visibility, based on experience
with other makes.
>
> a) Present-day Toyotas (and it's true of many of the other Japanese
> brands as well) have been thrifted and decontented mercilessly over
> the past two decades, to the point that it widely affects parts of the
> vehicle you see and feel.
Based on your experiences with a much more expensive car, and a small
amount of time with a car of lesser value and much higher mileage than
the one you're used to driving.
>
> b) The material quality is nowhere near what it was twenty years ago
> (you have to shop in the Lexus store to get material quality
> comparable to what was the norm in Toyota-label products in the early
> '90s)
To some extent, I agree with this. Toyota put much more effort and
money into the high-dollar Lexus than its lesser brands, and that cost
them market share (the recent problems with throttle/braking issues is
just one aspect of the problem--they've tried to incorporate
technological changes across the lines that didn't work well. They spent
so much money on Lexus technology that they expected to filter down and
be suitable for low-end models--and which didn't--that they've now had
to retrench and rethink what they've been doing).
>
> c) They've always had tendencies toward odd designs but in some cases
> they've gone full-tilt down the weird hole often to the detriment of
> functionality. I would note here that while Honda followed the
> Prius-style extended A-pillars with the last couple generations of
> Civic, the new Civic-based small Acura pulls them back to a more
> traditional shape.
>
Why this emphasis on A-pillars? That seems to be a peculiarity unique to
you and unrelated to the cars. I adapt to the front and side views
whatever car I'm in, whether it's the GT6 I still use occasionally, or
the BMW. I think that's just an anachronism that's particular to you
and not the car design. A-pillars really don't mean shit. C'mon, ever
since the `30s, they've been pretty thin and unobtrusive. Maybe you're
manufacturing a complaint here.
Cheers.
--
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....
_______________________________________________
Shop-talk@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
|