Toyota Tundra

[bec5150]

The original subject of this post was a misleading Toyota commercial that suggested that someone should upgrade to a Tundra in the same manner, as one would upgrade from a framing hammer to a power nailer.

 

What was pointed out was that Toyota's current Tundra is last or in 3rd place in towing and payload, and their trucks have had numerous TSBs over warped brake rotors which are far too small, and too thin, with the further statement being that regardless of how well built Toyota thinks the new Tundra is, it has likely not been subjected to the kind of extreme testing that Ford puts its F-series trucks through. Mention was also made of the poor reputation enjoyed by the Tundra in certain quarters. It is difficult to substantiate that with references, but given time, one could perform the research, and would undoubtedly find few Tundras that are routinely used for towing or hauling at anywhere near maximum rated limits.

Too much vagueness, too much "I am assuming" and "I would guess." You don't know anything about the Tundra and, to be sure, neither do I. "It has likely not been subjected to the kind of extreme...." Come on, Richard. Are you really so naive as to think that Toyota is going to market a truck that is not up to the task? You state that the Tundra has a bad reputation in certain quarters. What is that supposed to mean?

 

I am guessing that the F-150 is held in a pretty low regard in certain quarters. So is the CR-V, and the Ranger. So what. It's all opinion, it's all just throwing stones, right? You got any facts? Guess not...

 

This is the kind of thinking that got Ford in the hole. You already have stated that you "assume it's likely that it could be true that perhaps the Toyota is a POS. How fitting you post such fertilizer this close to the election.

 

How about "We have no idea what the Tundra is like, bad or good" and leave it at that?

Edited November 1, 2006 by bec5150

[RichardJensen]

Too much vagueness, too much "I am assuming" and "I would guess." You don't know anything about the Tundra and, to be sure, neither do I. "It has likely not been subjected to the kind of extreme...." Come on, Richard. Are you really so naive as to think that Toyota is going to market a truck that is not up to the task? You state that the Tundra has a bad reputation in certain quarters. What is that supposed to mean?

 

I am guessing that the F-150 is held in a pretty low regard in certain quarters. So is the CR-V, and the Ranger. So what. It's all opinion, it's all just throwing stones, right? You got any facts? Guess not...

 

This is the kind of thinking that got Ford in the hole. You already have stated that you "assume it's likely that it could be true that perhaps the Toyota is a POS. How fitting you post such fertilizer this close to the election.

 

How about "We have no idea what the Tundra is like, bad or good" and leave it at that?

There is no vagueness whatsoever about the current Tundra. It is not a "POS" (I never said it was), but it is not a class leader in any measurement that matters (including fuel economy).

 

Now, to vagueness about the Tundra's reputation:

 

"Toyota says more owners of the Toyota Tacoma small pickup traded up to the Ford F-Series last year than Toyota sold Tundras."

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/...0209_359467.htm

 

Further, to the only true speculation in the post, the level of durability testing that Toyota employs.

 

We don't know what level of durability testing Toyota puts its trucks and engines through, but it is exceptionally unlikely that Toyota has the budget (on the Tundra) for this kind of an effort:

 

“By the time we launch this vehicle,†said Dan Davidson, Powertrain supervisor, “the engine will have seen more than 10 million equivalent miles of testing both on the dyno and in test vehicles.â€

http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_di...&make_id=92

 

Said of the PowerStroke diesel in the new '08 Super Duty.

 

Not apples to apples, but if you think that substantially less durability testing goes into the transmissions and engines on F-Series vehicles, you'd be mistaken.

 

Now, to the idea that "This is how Ford got into trouble"

 

I disagree. It was not just that Ford did not take Toyota seriously in the sedan market, it was that Ford did not take Toyota seriously and AS A CONSEQUENCE did not improve the Taurus in a manner consistent with customer expectations.

 

The big thing is the consequence of not taking Toyota seriously, not that Ford did not take Toyota seriously.

 

In the fullsize truck market, it's a given that Ford takes its competition seriously. Their approach to the segment is a competent and successful approach, and Ford shows no signs, with the new SD, of backing away of the role they have held, for the last 30 years, of leading the segment.

[06StangAwesomecar]

06Stang, I was trying to respond to your post man.

That one, remember? You talked about people going to the import forums and talking about the problems they had with their poor purchase. Just trying to make you feel at home man.

 

Yeah I bought the car, it was fun for awhile, but after awhile the new wears off and you start to take a more objective look at it. I don't hold anyone except myself responsible for that. I really liked the retro body design, still do. I had a 65 Mustang when I was younger and the body design took me right back there. I fell in love with that body design and just had to have it so I admit I was not really thinking objectively when I bought the car. But I'm not 22 anymore either, I'm older and because of that eventually I started to really take an objective look at the car. I don't know how much you paid for your Mustang? Don't really care. I do know that the average price on one is right about 30 grand on the lots. I know you can order one to your specs and get it for less. If you like your Mustang, that's cool. It's a cool car, I hope you enjoy it. But my personal standpoint is, if I'm going to spend nearly 30 grand for a car I expect a lot better in the interior. The mustang doesn't have that, so I got rid of it.

 

By the way, this sort of shit.

Is exactly the sort of stuff that Richie likes to point out on his sticky lists. But we all understand that asswipes like you get a pass because it's pro-Ford. The Ford Koolaid crowd. Say something negative about a Ford and look how you fly off the handle.

 

So what about it Richie? Does 06Stang get to go the "penalty box"? No of course not, it's not that he isn't an asshole, he's just your kind of asshole.

 

By the way 06stang, my import is a Mazda, powered by a Ford motor. .!..

 

Hey I at least cesored it, and I will give you credit for a better respone this time. If you would have wrote it this way the first time instead of getting all butthurt I wouldnt have commented.

You talked about people going to the import forums and talking about the problems they had with their poor purchase.

no I said this

The sites that I have been on crack me up because they talk about all these problems they are having with their poor purchase, YET IT IS SUCH A GREAT CAR

 

I guess I must have hit a nerve without even mentioning your name, did I mention it ?

 

 

I think for what I paid, I got a real good all around car for my money. I have a Picture of it.

Also I swear I read in one of your post you owned a Tundra, if I am wrong then I am wrong.

Edited November 1, 2006 by 06StangAwesomecar

[bec5150]

Unlikely that Toyota has the budget for the Tundra!!!!??? Toyota has a mentality like Wal Mart. They want everyone's money and every sale. They have taken note, as you stated, that many Toyota owners are buying F-150's and they are not happy about it.

 

Yeah, that's it, the highest profitability automotive company in the world is building a state of the art factory in Texas, debuted it's truck in the NASCAR truck series, and has built a new truck from top to bottom, but golly gee, we are to assume that they have a limited R and D budget? What would make you assume that they would have a limited R and D budget for the Tundra? I realize it's all speculation, but speculation AKA an educated guess is just that, EDUCATED.

 

OH, that's right, the Japanese are developing the Tundra in a small facility just outside Tokyo and they don't have any money because the profits all go back to Japan. I forgot the pro Ford mentality.

 

As far as the Toyota seriously statement, umm, double speak. You are agreeing with me by stating the same damn thing I said. Ok, whatever. Would it be too difficult for you to say "Hey, you and I agree on something."?

 

Bottom line is that the last generation Tundra is not competitive but the new one will be. And really, as long as Ford's cars lag behind or are "perceived" to lag behind Toyota and the Ford dealer network stays as jacked up as it is now, competitive is all that the Tundra has to be. It doesn't have to beat the F-150 in anything, it just has to be a reasonable alternative.

 

Toyota will get the market to the point where Ford and Toyota sell their trucks for the same money, but Toyota sells theres and makes more profit. That's going to be where the rub is.

 

One thing I think we all can agree on. The full sized truck market is going to get damn interesting in the coming years.

Edited November 1, 2006 by bec5150

[toyboxrv]

Unlikely that Toyota has the budget for the Tundra!!!!??? Toyota has a mentality like Wal Mart. They want everyone's money and every sale. They have taken note, as you stated, that many Toyota owners are buying F-150's and they are not happy about it.

 

Yeah, that's it, the highest profitability automotive company in the world is building a state of the art factory in Texas, debuted it's truck in the NASCAR truck series, and has built a new truck from top to bottom, but golly gee, we are to assume that they have a limited R and D budget? What would make you assume that they would have a limited R and D budget for the Tundra? I realize it's all speculation, but speculation AKA an educated guess is just that, EDUCATED.

 

OH, that's right, the Japanese are developing the Tundra in a small facility just outside Tokyo and they don't have any money because the profits all go back to Japan. I forgot the pro Ford mentality.

 

As far as the Toyota seriously statement, umm, double speak. You are agreeing with me by stating the same damn thing I said. Ok, whatever. Would it be too difficult for you to say "Hey, you and I agree on something."?

 

Bottom line is that the last generation Tundra is not competitive but the new one will be. And really, as long as Ford's cars lag behind or are "perceived" to lag behind Toyota and the Ford dealer network stays as jacked up as it is now, competitive is all that the Tundra has to be. It doesn't have to beat the F-150 in anything, it just has to be a reasonable alternative.

 

Toyota will get the market to the point where Ford and Toyota sell their trucks for the same money, but Toyota sells theres and makes more profit. That's going to be where the rub is.

 

One thing I think we all can agree on. The full sized truck market is going to get damn interesting in the coming years.

 

As if the Toyota dealer network isn't jacked up. They've never sold a real competitor to the F150 and most of their sales staff don't have the credibility to convince people to change. Try driving around Texas and see all of the big towns surrounded by small communities where a Toyota dealer doesn't exist, but Ford and GM do. Do you think that people will drive 50 to a 100 miles to buy a truck that hasn't proven itself yet from a dealer they haven't dealt with for decades, when their current dealer is much closer? There are plenty of places in mid America just like that where the Toyota dealers are few and far between. The Tundra is in the top 10 in sales in California and foolish Californians think that will spread to the rest of the country. Tundra market share in a lot of areas is only 2 - 3% because of the lack of a strong dealer network.

 

Toyota has to spend just as much as Ford to engineer a new truck. If they sell a third as many for the same price, there is little chance they will be making more profit. Ford has announced a diesel for the F150 by 09. GM has a diesel coming for 1/2 tons and a dual mode hybrid. Toyota has none. Toyota halted developement of a 3/4 ton. If Toyota doesn't follow through with what it takes to compete, they will continue to be a bit player.

[bec5150]

I don't think Toyota is shooting for the current "Ford only" customer you described. They want that customer that has a Ford F-150 sitting next to their Camery. That's step one.

 

The profit I was refering to was profit/unit and yes, I do believe that Toyotas profit per vehicle will be quite a bit higher than Fords for the same reasons that Ford can't seem to make money off of their current car lines. Too much inefficiency in manufacturing, the higher UAW labor cost, and the legacy cost of the retirees.

 

Again, it's all speculation at this point. We'll see.

[RichardJensen]

What would make you assume that they would have a limited R and D budget for the Tundra?

Every budget is limited.

 

In this case, it's a question of personnel. Ford has more personnel working on the F-Series, ergo the budget's higher. If you want statistics I could dig them up.

 

Further, I believe you have made a mistake in concluding that Toyota's reputation in cars will spill over to trucks. It simply has not. According to Toyota, in 2005, over 127,000 Taco owners traded up to an F-series of some sort (mostly used, I would assume). That speaks volumes to the distinction between Ford's reputation as a builder of cars, and their reputation as a builder of trucks.

 

Also, the point on volume and cost of development is valid. Ford spends more on the F-Series because they have more volume to amortize it over. As long as Ford continues to spend wisely (as they have for the most part on the F-series thus far), that volume advantage DOES translate into an R&D advantage.

 

You make frequent mention of these F150/Camry households--my question is, with fullsize volume shrinking, and with the bulk of that decline coming from the 'personal use' segment, why should it be a foregone conclusion that the F150 be replaced by another truck of some sort? It would seem that the market is headed away from the truck as second vehicle entirely.

 

As far as the "This is what got Ford in trouble in the first place" comment goes, I do NOT agree with you. Having a rational expecation of what the Tundra will do IS important. Realizing that it will be more competitive than the previous Tundra is important.

 

But it is a long way from being "more competitive" to "presenting an incentive to switch".

 

What Ford is running into with the Fusion, Toyota will find with the Tundra. There is no compelling reason for the bulk of Camry owners to trade into a Fusion. There will, similarly, be no compelling reason for F150 owners to trade into a Tundra. Therefore, expecting significant market share gains from the Tundra is simply out of line with the way people behave. If they have received good service from their F150, they will return to their Ford dealer (which in both sales and service has, on average, a better reputation than their Toyota dealer).

 

The difference, of course, is that Ford didn't build a whole new plant dedicated to the Fusion.

Edited November 1, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Guest Sixcav]

Also I swear I read in one of your post you owned a Tundra, if I am wrong then I am wrong.

 

You have me mixed up with someone else. I've never owned a Tundra. Years back (Like 1997 / 98) I considered one, but when I got to looking into it I felt it wasn't a good buy. At that time the Tundra came on one and only one length chassis. So if you wanted a short bed, you had to get the extended cab and if you wanted a regular cab you had to get the long bed. A short bed with a regular cab was not available which I thought was just ridiculous. I also felt it was overpriced and the back seat in the extended cab was flat out uncomfortable. The V6 motor was an underpowered joke, but the V8 was pretty good. So at that time I felt the Tundra was not a good buy, I actually preferred either the Ford or Chevy. Now I'm not in the market for a truck, don't have any real need for one. Apparently with this new Tundra they have wised up a little and they are offering something like 32 variations I think, something like that. Now they offer things like regular cab and short bed. In short they copied Ford and Chevy and Dodge in that respect. They have increased their towing and hauling capacity, the V8 is supposed to be stronger. I haven't heard about their V6, it may still be the joke it once was. So like I said, I don't think this current Tundra will unseat the F150. It is entirely possible that it's a good truck, perhaps every bit as good as the F150. But Ford has been making great trucks for many many years now and they have a loyal consumer base because of it.

[bec5150]

Every budget is limited.

 

Ford has more personnel working on the F-Series, ergo the budget's higher.

Ok, give me those stats. The rest of your post is speculation. We'll see.

[RichardJensen]

Ok, give me those stats. The rest of your post is speculation. We'll see.

Toyota has about 550 engineers stateside (source is an IndustryWeek article: http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11301 )

 

The Tundra (aside from the powertrain, I would assume) was engineered at Ann Arbor (source: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/newt...ews_events.html )

 

The Ann Arbor center designed the most recent Sienna and Avalon, and are in the process of designing the next Sequoia. That's four models and 550 engineers.

 

I have to step back somewhat, and admit that I have been unable to find estimates for the number of engineers on the Ford truck teams, I had thought I'd seen references to over 500 engineers on the F-series, but I can't find them. The best I can do is a reference to over 300 engineers on the Escape.

 

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_dis...fm?release=3978

 

Which while not a direct statement that over 300 engineers work on the F-series.........

[bec5150]

Toyota has about 550 engineers stateside (source is an IndustryWeek article: http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11301 )

 

The Tundra (aside from the powertrain, I would assume) was engineered at Ann Arbor (source: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/newt...ews_events.html )

 

The Ann Arbor center designed the most recent Sienna and Avalon, and are in the process of designing the next Sequoia. That's four models and 550 engineers.

 

I have to step back somewhat, and admit that I have been unable to find estimates for the number of engineers on the Ford truck teams, I had thought I'd seen references to over 500 engineers on the F-series, but I can't find them. The best I can do is a reference to over 300 engineers on the Escape.

 

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_dis...fm?release=3978

 

Which while not a direct statement that over 300 engineers work on the F-series.........

Mmm...gee, no facts to back up your statement. Bout what I figured.

 

The number of engineers would have to be for the F-150 ONLY. Remember that the F series engineers are doing the F-150, 250, 350, and the chassis cab + the 450 and 550 chassis, etc. So I think you would agree that the number of F-series engineers wouldn't be an accurate comparison, eh?

 

Number of engineers for the Escape? Umm..whatever.

Edited November 2, 2006 by bec5150

[RichardJensen]

Mmm...gee, no facts to back up your statement. Bout what I figured.

 

The number of engineers would have to be for the F-150 ONLY. Remember that the F series engineers are doing the F-150, 250, 350, and the chassis cab + the 450 and 550 chassis, etc. So I think you would agree that the number of F-series engineers wouldn't be an accurate comparison, eh?

 

Number of engineers for the Escape? Umm..whatever.

First: the number of Toyota engineers stateside does not equal the number of engineers working on the Tundra.

 

Ann Arbor is responsible for the Sienna, Sequoia, Tundra, and Avalon.

 

Therefore, at any given moment you will have substantially less than 550 engineers working on the Tundra.

 

Then, since I was unable to find a rough figure for engineers that worked on the F150, I pose just this one question to you:

 

Does it seem likely that Ford would have MORE engineers working on the Escape at its launch, than they would have working on the '04 F150?

 

In the absence of verifiable facts, I leave that question to you, and ask you to answer it as best you can.

 

BTW, when did I pee in your oatmeal?

[bec5150]

First: the number of Toyota engineers stateside does not equal the number of engineers working on the Tundra.

 

Ann Arbor is responsible for the Sienna, Sequoia, Tundra, and Avalon.

 

Therefore, at any given moment you will have substantially less than 550 engineers working on the Tundra.

 

Then, since I was unable to find a rough figure for engineers that worked on the F150, I pose just this one question to you:

 

Does it seem likely that Ford would have MORE engineers working on the Escape at its launch, than they would have working on the '04 F150?

 

In the absence of verifiable facts, I leave that question to you, and ask you to answer it as best you can.

 

BTW, when did I pee in your oatmeal?

I don't make assumptions in the absence of verifiable facts. I do use logic and logic tells me that, everything being equal (computer equipment, infrastructure, etc) the number of engineering M/H's to develop a given product, process, etc; would be equal among companies. With that being said, if Toyota had less engineers working on a given product than Ford, they would either take longer to develop, have more efficiency in infrastructure (faster computers), you get my drift. Saying that the number of engineers has anything to do with how well a product is developed is only accurate if other factors are considered equal. The reality is that I know precisely dick about how many engineers Toyota and Ford have working on their pickup program. Same goes for you. The difference is I admit it.

 

As far as peeing in oatmeal, I did NOT appreciate your sticky, locked post. It was unprofessional, biased, childish, and one of the most ridiculous signs of immaturity I have ever seen out of someone old enough to know better. You didn't name me, but that doesn't matter. There is a PM function in this software to address individuals. If you wanna moderate, moderate. But to abuse your so called "authority" as a moderator and admin was really a bad show of taste and not appreciated by the logical mature members of this site regardless of what they drive or who they "support."

 

You owe folks an apology. It was out of line. You gotta ask yourself what kind of board you want to have here and then ask yourself what steps YOU are willing to take to ensure that the board reflects what you want. If you want a board that supports trolling by pro Ford children, that's fine, but at least admit it. If not, then retract your sticky post and set some groundrules for ALL members here on this board.

 

You should be embarrassed about that sticky, locked post. It brings discredit to you, the board, and yes, even Ford.

[Guest Sixcav]

I don't make assumptions in the absence of verifiable facts. I do use logic and logic tells me that, everything being equal (computer equipment, infrastructure, etc) the number of engineering M/H's to develop a given product, process, etc; would be equal among companies. With that being said, if Toyota had less engineers working on a given product than Ford, they would either take longer to develop, have more efficiency in infrastructure (faster computers), you get my drift. Saying that the number of engineers has anything to do with how well a product is developed is only accurate if other factors are considered equal. The reality is that I know precisely dick about how many engineers Toyota and Ford have working on their pickup program. Same goes for you. The difference is I admit it.

 

As far as peeing in oatmeal, I did NOT appreciate your sticky, locked post. It was unprofessional, biased, childish, and one of the most ridiculous signs of immaturity I have ever seen out of someone old enough to know better. You didn't name me, but that doesn't matter. There is a PM function in this software to address individuals. If you wanna moderate, moderate. But to abuse your so called "authority" as a moderator and admin was really a bad show of taste and not appreciated by the logical mature members of this site regardless of what they drive or who they "support."

 

You owe folks an apology. It was out of line. You gotta ask yourself what kind of board you want to have here and then ask yourself what steps YOU are willing to take to ensure that the board reflects what you want. If you want a board that supports trolling by pro Ford children, that's fine, but at least admit it. If not, then retract your sticky post and set some groundrules for ALL members here on this board.

 

You should be embarrassed about that sticky, locked post. It brings discredit to you, the board, and yes, even Ford.

 

 

BOOM!!!!! lol, good post bec.

[cheri/ck]

The fact is there are no verifiable statistics that matter for the Tundra. It's only real-sized competition is the Dodge Dakota. Everyone likes to take aim at the Tundra because it is not as big and strong as the Big 3's half-ton offerings. But, for its size and weight, it is a very good competitor. I don't own one, but I have driven a few and have friends that own them and these people use their Tundra (and one old T-100) just as hard as anyone around here uses a half-ton truck at least for hauling firewood, ATV's, four-wheeling, etc. Guess I don't know anyone that uses an F-150 or Tundra or Titan for towing much more than a medium-sized boat or camper and that is usually only for a few weekends a year.

 

One fact that I believe to be quite true is that the latest version of the F-150 was introduced to the public with plenty of problems. The bed bounced around so badly that Ford decided to try to counter-weight it underneath. Many of the early trucks vibrated badly and lots of parts were replaced trying to fix them from steering racks to driveshafts to rear differentials - Ford ended up buying a bunch of them back because they couldn't fix them. The 5.4 with variable valve timing probably still has a problem with the longevity of the cam phaser set-up. The spark plugs are already a problem too in this engine as they tend to corrode and then break when attempted to be removed. And, just like what seems to be common with all the heavier vehicles - Tundra included, Titan most definitely - the brakes are also a problem area in the F-150.

 

So folks, in my mind, there is a pent-up demand for a nice truck that is also reliable. Toyota has the reliability reputation. Although the current Tundra has had its share of problems - not enough to drive customers away and not enough problems not properly addressed by Toyota to be big news on the internet.

The Tundra will be a threat to the domestics if for no other reason that the perception of good reliability, engineering quality and solid respect for Toyota as a manufacturer. Nissan is about to update the Titan too. That truck was introduced with plenty of problems, but it sits on a strong frame with a good drivetrain.

 

May the best truck win in my mind. Ford has messed around with a lot of their loyal truck buyers and I would bet that plenty of us will at least drive the new Japanese offerings before deciding on the next truck purchase.

[RichardJensen]

I don't make assumptions in the absence of verifiable facts. I do use logic and logic tells me that, everything being equal (computer equipment, infrastructure, etc) the number of engineering M/H's to develop a given product, process, etc; would be equal among companies. With that being said, if Toyota had less engineers working on a given product than Ford, they would either take longer to develop, have more efficiency in infrastructure (faster computers), you get my drift. Saying that the number of engineers has anything to do with how well a product is developed is only accurate if other factors are considered equal. The reality is that I know precisely dick about how many engineers Toyota and Ford have working on their pickup program. Same goes for you. The difference is I admit it.

 

As far as peeing in oatmeal, I did NOT appreciate your sticky, locked post. It was unprofessional, biased, childish, and one of the most ridiculous signs of immaturity I have ever seen out of someone old enough to know better. You didn't name me, but that doesn't matter. There is a PM function in this software to address individuals. If you wanna moderate, moderate. But to abuse your so called "authority" as a moderator and admin was really a bad show of taste and not appreciated by the logical mature members of this site regardless of what they drive or who they "support."

 

You owe folks an apology. It was out of line. You gotta ask yourself what kind of board you want to have here and then ask yourself what steps YOU are willing to take to ensure that the board reflects what you want. If you want a board that supports trolling by pro Ford children, that's fine, but at least admit it. If not, then retract your sticky post and set some groundrules for ALL members here on this board.

 

You should be embarrassed about that sticky, locked post. It brings discredit to you, the board, and yes, even Ford.

1) The number of man-hours is also dependent upon the degree of research and testing that is directed toward producing individual components in said product or process. It is not a given that a V8 engine will only take x number of man-hours to develop....

 

2) You make assumptions in the absence of verifiable facts all the time. Would you have any hesitation whatsoever about recommending a 2007 Honda Accord with a manual transmission, as a vehicle with above-average reliability? Of course not. I wouldn't either. But I have no verifiable facts on the 2007 Honda Accord. I have a history of reliability on that vehicle, but no facts about vehicles that have not been built or tested as of yet. The difference is the basis upon which you are willing to make a leap to a conclusion, and that difference is one that can be debated, and which does not necessarily have right or wrong answers.

 

3) I would consider it an abuse of my authority as moderator to PM individuals and ask them to tone down their conduct, or to close threads, or to revoke memberships.

 

I am tired of receiving complaints about the negative tone of the forum.

 

But I flat refuse to censor content or ban members.

 

The status quo gave tacit support to conduct that irritated a number of people on the board. This list removes any appearance of tacit support for that conduct, and it irritates the rest of the board.

 

As far as that goes, it is quite clear that a fair percentage of the board that was NOT ticked before is now ticked, and a fair percentage of the board that WAS ticked before is not.

 

I consider that a fair trade.

[bec5150]

My MH's statement was based on "all other factors being equal." I think we both agree, with you naming other factors influencing, etc. Ok, we agree.

 

My recommendation on what to purchase to someone would be based on my experience and the experience of other owners that I know as well as mechanics. My brother has owned three Honda Accords in a row that have gone to 300K miles. His current ride is a 2000 Accord with 225K on it. As far as Ford, I cannot recommend either way because I haven't owned a Ford car since the 97 Taurus, the one that self destructed at 125K.

 

You were and are tired about people complaining. You chose a course of action. That course of action was out of line for a moderator. Wanna be a moderator? Moderate. You, as a moderator, should put yourself at a higher standard.

 

You say you refuse to moderate. Ok, but then you have what you have. Saying you choose not to moderate your forum is no excuse for what you did. It was out of line and inappropriate. I can't go out and shoot my neighbor using the violance in "East LA" as justification. "See, everyone else is shooting their neighbor and the police don't do anything about it, therefore I am well within my rights to shoot my neighbor." THat's your mode of thinking. Is this the way you do other things in your life?

 

That's kinda childish, isn't it? Even without moderating, you still set the tone. You set the standard. So you stoop to the level of the lowest denominator AND THEN bitch about the tone of the posts. I guess I just don't see what you accomplished.

 

And then there's the deal where you said absolutely NOTHING about the pro Ford trolls. I would like you to answer for that? It's apparant that you wanna take the high road, but you can't. It's too late. You are bitching about "them" but with your post, you are now one of them. IN fact, with the abuse of your admin power, you are WORSE than them.

 

And don't say the one group was bitching and another wasn't and the roles are reversed. The people frequenting this board that share my opinion don't like posts that are immature and insulting regardless of who it is. I have replied with such posts (in the absence of moderation, what choice do I have), but I have never instigated such conduct.

 

IN short, you were wrong, and you seem to lack the ability to accept that.

[RichardJensen]

I can't go out and shoot my neighbor using the violance in "East LA" as justification. "See, everyone else is shooting their neighbor and the police don't do anything about it, therefore I am well within my rights to shoot my neighbor." THat's your mode of thinking. Is this the way you do other things in your life?

yeah. If I was shooting people, you'd have a point. My course of conduct is LESS restrictive on the users i've named than your suggested course. That's where your analogy breaks down. You would have me shoot neighbors. I've just posted a list of neighbors with bad conduct.

 

What you suggest, is that I close topics, delete posts, and ban members. I refuse to do that, it's censorship.

 

Instead, I respond with something less than that which irks you because it is childish (I've actually labeled it petty, not childish, but that's quibbling over details).

 

However, I am not going to back away from doing a childish and petty thing to bring attention to what I consider to be childish and petty conduct.

 

If the members of the board, collectively, do not wish to see a list of misbehaving individuals at the top of the board, they can collectively behave.

 

You are free to disagree with my choice of action and to label it however you want.

 

But I am not going to make value judgments about who deserves to be ticked off, and if people are complaining to me about the tone of the board, I'm not going to gratify their desires for banning and censorship, but I'm going to do something to redistribute the irritation.

 

Again, calling my action 'childish' is a fair shot. But the 'adult' things you suggest smack of censorship.

 

And do you think for a moment that deleting posts, closing threads, and warning and banning users would provoke LESS of an outcry?

 

This is the bare minimum action required to get most of the results I want.

Edited November 2, 2006 by RichardJensen

[bec5150]

I will ask again...why did you not condemn the pro Ford trolls (Range, 06stang and the like)?

[Bluecon]

Further, to the only true speculation in the post, the level of durability testing that Toyota employs.

 

We don't know what level of durability testing Toyota puts its trucks and engines through, but it is exceptionally unlikely that Toyota has the budget (on the Tundra) for this kind of an effort:

This is typical of the ridiculous arguments the Ford cheerleaders make in this forum.

Ford which just lost 5.8b in the third quarter and is fighting for its' financial life has more money to develop the F-150 then Toyota who is making money hand over fist. Just ridiculous.

[Michael Reynolds]

This is typical of the ridiculous arguments the Ford cheerleaders make in this forum.

Ford which just lost 5.8b in the third quarter and is fighting for its' financial life has more money to develop the F-150 then Toyota who is making money hand over fist. Just ridiculous.

 

No more ridiculous than yours. Once again you chime in at the tail end of something with NOTHING to offer. Thanks.

[RichardJensen]

I will ask again...why did you not condemn the pro Ford trolls (Range, 06stang and the like)?

In large part because the complaints I have received concern the negative tone of the board, but in a smaller part because I consider it the responsibility of members posting critical opinions of Ford to expect and ignore the inevitable provocations and sniping that will come from people like Range.

 

At this point in time, with the battle being joined every time Range posts his flaming CR-V, it's impossible to sort out who's less mature: the individual that posts the flaming CR-V, or the individual that knows it's coming, knows it's childish, and who responds to it just the same.

 

It's easy to say which person was FIRST, but it's not easy to say which person displayed less self-control.

[Bluecon]

No more ridiculous than yours. Once again you chime in at the tail end of something with NOTHING to offer. Thanks.

No more ridiculous than what?

What is the value of this post? Just a blatant attack typical of the Ford cheerleaders.

[Michael Reynolds]

No more ridiculous than what?

What is the value of this post? Just a blatant attack typical of the Ford cheerleaders.

 

Come on now, you know what I'm talking about. If I have to read another post with the following:

-cheerleaders

-ostrich

-Ford lost _____

 

Grief.........

[bec5150]

In large part because the complaints I have received concern the negative tone of the board, but in a smaller part because I consider it the responsibility of members posting critical opinions of Ford to expect and ignore the inevitable provocations and sniping that will come from people like Range.

 

At this point in time, with the battle being joined every time Range posts his flaming CR-V, it's impossible to sort out who's less mature: the individual that posts the flaming CR-V, or the individual that knows it's coming, knows it's childish, and who responds to it just the same.

 

It's easy to say which person was FIRST, but it's not easy to say which person displayed less self-control.

So you admit he should have probably been on your list?