Why are Toyota's so popular in Ireland

damo605

unkel wrote:

your angst in relation to your anxiety about

OK, now that's complicated :eek:

I don't want to start an argument regarding the merits of one car versus another or the reliability of one car versus another - I was just giving my personal opinion based on my personal experience.... So don't take any offence!

AMurphy

ned78 wrote:

......

It has very little to do with Toyotas school of ethos, where they class Reliability, Boot Space, Soft Ride Quality, and Practicality as design rules. I'm really going to start a flame war now. IMHO, 75% of people who buy Toyotas just couldn't care what they're in. If it says '06 on the front, they're happy. Our car culture in Ireland is extremely primitive.

Is reliability a fault?.

If you don't like the ride you can change it. Lowering springs, etc ARE available.
Practicality... I find 95% of the Sh*t available on dashboards there days of no value. A buzzer attached tot he oil light would offer more useful information. Call me a Luddite, I don't care.

IMHO, 75% of people who buy Toyotas just couldn't care what they're in.

Not true, we have an aversion to Garages and garage bills.

Our car culture in Ireland is extremely primitive.

Blame your Gov for that my friend. 100% tax does not exactly create a "car friendly envirionment". Paying BMW prices for a Micra is no fun.

OK, lets see.
Truck; 88 - 2.4L I4, 180Kmls. Original just about everything. Items replaced.
Radiator, one brake pads (only) F&R change so far. Water pump, Fan Clutch, not actually needed, but changed anyway with the rad, hose pipes along with the rad, Thermostat. Starter and Crank Shaft oil seal, needed.
Steering box showing a bit of wear, (probably fail your NCT, but not about to fail). Few rounds of plugs, wires, filters, bulbs, belts, shocks, battries, few trim pieces, O2 sensors and thats about it. Original clutch, drums, disks and front wheel bearings, gearbox and rear axle.
No surprise stoppages on the highway

Camry; 89 - 2.5 V6. 159 K mls.
Not the most reliable on the oil leaks front. Original just about everything.
Still on 2nd set of brake pads. Original clutch, Timing belt, PS belt, brake disks, AirCon, alternator & starter.
Items replaced; Thermostat, few O2 sensors, bulbs, few belts other than the PS belt, plugs, wires and cap/rotors. CV joint boots. Reverse switch and a few battries.

Trouble items currently. PS rack seals, Oil pump/crank shaft oil seals, drivers window guides, Front brake pads in need of a change again. Back door opener, piece of wire fell off again, simple fix, just a pain.
CD joints vibrating... need replacement this time.
Could probably do with dampers about now, but not a problem.

No surprise stoppages on the highway


Compare to Van, Chrysler Minivan 97 3.3L V6. 115Kmls
Items changed so far;
Radiator and hoses. Gearbox (A/T),
Rear shocks, now needs both F and R rebuilt.
F Rotors changed at 60K, 3rd set of F pads.
Needs the back brakes rebuilt.
Park brake ineffective.
Park Brake assy, and 2nd one is demonstrating failure now also.
Belt spring tensioner mysteriously collapsed.
Wing mirror fell apart, I have to re-manufacture it.
Starter motor now giving trouble (interesting, same manufacturer as the Toyotas).
Master cyclinder is also leaking.
Battries do not last long due to the engine heat boiling them.
2 surprise stoppages thus far. Not including flat battries.

So you tell me, which vehicle is the most reliable?.:rolleyes:

colm_mcm

unkel wrote:

Sweet car and lovely pic, Ernie

in my 20 years of driving, I least enjoyed my two week stint with a current model Toyota Corolla 2.0 D4-D. The only positive thing with the Corolla I can report was that the aircon worked well although it was very noisy.

That was a 1.4 D-4D you were driving, as the 2.0 model is only available in the hatchback in base trim (no A/C) unless you're in the UK

opus

bazz26 wrote:

Personnally I'd rather have a mid or top range Toyota than a basic entry level BMW. As someone else said a Ferrari or Lambo is drivers cars, the likes of a 116i or 316i are not no matter even if it is rwd.

Or if you don't want to splash out on new car depreciation then go for an older model of your choice. Why pay through the nose for a 316/116 when you can have 10 year old 328 for almost nothing. My own is at 130k miles & going strong. Whenever it becomes uneconomical to keep running then I'll replace it with something similar.

pburns

I thought Alfas were supposed to be the divisive marque around here... I've never seen so many heated arguments on the forum!

I've owned an Avensis, kept it for 4 years (previous, facelifted model).

Engine - 1.6 VVTi - Not huge torque but very smooth.

Brilliant performance for a 1.6 - good economy & power. There was a problem with the block of these engines though, it started to leak oil. This leads me to...

After-sales - brilliant. The block was replaced, absolutely no fuss. This may not seem earth-shattering but a friend in the trade told me if it was most other makes (particularly French), there would be form-filling & hand-wringing for at least a month. I have a natural aversion to bureaucracy & bull so I really appreciated this.

Comfort - reminded me of a French car - very softly sprung. Good for country roads but...

Handling was terrible. And an old-model Corolla I drove was even worse. However I've driven the current Corolla (briefly) and it seems much improved.

V. bland, no style. Zero image.

I'd agree the with the poster who said the quality of the materials was not very high but that these materials were well screwed together.

Anyway, that's it, the good & bad. Don't think I'd buy another myself but i'd probably recommend one to non-car enthusiast.

unkel

damo605 wrote:

So don't take any offence!

None taken, was only messin'

colm_mcm wrote:

That was a 1.4 D-4D you were driving, as the 2.0 model is only available in the hatchback in base trim (no A/C) unless you're in the UK

Sorry, should have posted it was a rental car on holidays in France. It was a 2.0 D-4D

maidhc

opus wrote:

Or if you don't want to splash out on new car depreciation then go for an older model of your choice. Why pay through the nose for a 316/116 when you can have 10 year old 328 for almost nothing. My own is at 130k miles & going strong. Whenever it becomes uneconomical to keep running then I'll replace it with something similar.

That is OK so long as you do handy mileage. My mother does 25/30k a year, and drives a Diesel Avensis, and at that a 10yr old car will quickly become uneconomical to run.

For people who do those sort of miles, the Avensis is hard to beat from both a financial point of view and from the point of view of having something nice and comfy to drive.

unkel

maidhc wrote:

That is OK so long as you do handy mileage. My mother does 25/30k a year, and drives a Diesel Avensis, and at that a 10yr old car will quickly become uneconomical to run.

For people who do those sort of miles, the Avensis is hard to beat from both a financial point of view and from the point of view of having something nice and comfy to drive.

I agree. The Avensis is probably the cheapest family size car to run a huge mileage. The vast majority of cars in Ireland are scrapped before they are 10 years old, let alone with 300k miles :eek:

Spare a thought for all taxi drivers*. In the past at least they could drive a Merc. Now they are forced to drive an Avensis or an Octavia. Whatever self esteem they had, it is all gone now

*perhaps not in this country as taxis have always been low-end. In continental Europe there is indeed a big shift away from the archetypical taxi i.e. Mercedes-Benz E-class to the likes of the Avensis

Maybe I'll take a rental rather than a taxi on my next business trip

maidhc wrote:

something nice and comfy to drive.

Nice and comfy to drive?

I'd rather put my genitals in a blender than drive an Avensis tbh!

bazz26

unkel wrote:

I'd rather put my genitals in a blender than drive an Avensis tbh!

Whatever floats your boat.

I would find it difficult to cast judgement on a car you haven't driven. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Anyway the current model Avensis may not be an F1 driver's wet dream but it is no barge either. It is quite suited to Irish roads (Toyota test their European models over here when developing them), the ride is comfortable, it takes corners with ease and gives you no surprises (maybe some see that as a failing?). It is comfortable on long journeys, refined, doesn't fall apart. It is what it is, a dependable family saloon car, it doesn't pretent to be anything else. At the end of the day if people didn't want it they wouldn't buy it. Isn't this the purpose of selling cars? To sell people what they want? As I have already said I would rather keep my Avensis any day than have a half hearted attempt at making a slightly cheaper entry level model BMW.

Personnally I don't feel the need to have a car put a smile on my face or give me a warm fuzzy feeling and definately wouldn't buy a certain type or make of car to improve my social standing or image to others. (None of this directed personnally at you Unkel btw)

colm_mcm

unkel wrote:

Spare a thought for all taxi drivers*. In the past at least they could drive a Merc. Now they are forced to drive an Avensis or an Octavia. Whatever self esteem they had, it is all gone now

Who's forcing them?
a lot of taxi drivers don't drive mercs because they're not as well built as the older ones

Henry Ford III

Ernie Ball wrote:

Nonsense. The car weighs under a tonne. I have added front and rear member braces (aluminium), front strut tower bar (rear strut tower bar coming this week) and a centre breast plate. All together, they might add 15 lbs to the parts they replaced. The chassis is now stiffer than most cars with roofs.

I also have a removable hard top, which adds further rigidity.

I don't buy that Ernie. Scuttle shake is a fact of life. No open top car can ever be as stiff or as structurally rigid as a fhc. Simple physics.

p.s. Why did you need to add anything?

Owen

Henry Ford III wrote:

I don't buy that Ernie. Scuttle shake is a fact of life. No open top car can ever be as stiff or as structurally rigid as a fhc. Simple physics.

Yes, because you know more than Aston Martin and BMW. The new M6 Cabrio is being launched on the 19th at the London Motor Show, and boasts more torsional rigidity than the coupé!

Henry Ford III

pburns wrote:

....Avensis....Brilliant performance for a 1.6.....

Nah it's average at best. You need to drive a few more 1.6's.

bazz26

Well a 1.6 Avensis has 110bhp compared to a 1.8 LX Mondeo which has the same bhp.

colm_mcm

Yup drive a 1.6 Passat, then compare

Ernie Ball

Henry Ford III wrote:

I don't buy that Ernie. Scuttle shake is a fact of life. No open top car can ever be as stiff or as structurally rigid as a fhc. Simple physics.

Right, well, you're the one contradicting yourself. First you tell me that because my car has no roof I have a choice: either chassis flex or extra weight. I pointed out that I dealt with the chassis flex with braces that add almost no weight (and certainly less than what the roof of an fhc would add). So now, apparently, you've changed your tune and chassis stiffness can't be obtained no matter what I do. You need to make up your mind and then get back to me.

In any case, the car has virtually no scuttle shake with the hardtop off now.

p.s. Why did you need to add anything?

Because I wanted a stiffer chassis. Duh.

opus

maidhc wrote:

That is OK so long as you do handy mileage. My mother does 25/30k a year, and drives a Diesel Avensis, and at that a 10yr old car will quickly become uneconomical to run.

For people who do those sort of miles, the Avensis is hard to beat from both a financial point of view and from the point of view of having something nice and comfy to drive.

Can't argue with that, all the hackney drivers with Corollas on 300k can't be wrong! I've nothing against Toyota's btw, was just commenting on the post about paying through the nose for a new 316/116.

unkel

colm_mcm wrote:

Who's forcing them?
a lot of taxi drivers don't drive mercs because they're not as well built as the older ones

Exactly. That was my point. In the past it made sense for a taxi driver to drive a new merc and I reckon a lot of his job satisfaction was exactly that: driving a new shiny merc. No longer. An avensis / octavia will last just as well and it is a lot cheaper to buy and maintain. And there were problems with mercs recently to put it mildly

Taxi driver switches from merc, finds he is saving a bit of money and then realises he has lost his pride, his sense of achievement together with any joy and comfort he had in the past, because now he is driving an octvensis...

unkel

maidhc wrote:

Was it a 90 or 116bhp one?

Sorry maidhc, I missed your question

I think it might have been neither of your suggestions. It might have been the 110 bhp model. Not that it matters much though. The Corolla wasn't slow. It was just utterly boring

Henry Ford III

ned78 wrote:

Yes, because you know more than Aston Martin and BMW. The new M6 Cabrio is being launched on the 19th at the London Motor Show, and boasts more torsional rigidity than the coupé!

Some proof please?

Henry Ford III

Ernie Ball wrote:

Right, well, you're the one contradicting yourself. First you tell me that because my car has no roof I have a choice: either chassis flex or extra weight. I pointed out that I dealt with the chassis flex with braces that add almost no weight (and certainly less than what the roof of an fhc would add). So now, apparently, you've changed your tune and chassis stiffness can't be obtained no matter what I do. You need to make up your mind and then get back to me.

In any case, the car has virtually no scuttle shake with the hardtop off now.



Because I wanted a stiffer chassis. Duh.

No contradictions here.

Any open top car will suffer from scuttle shake. Think of a shoe box, which is much stronger with the lid on. Adding bracing is an attempt to minimise the problem, but it cannot ever eliminate it.

p.s. If you want a properly stiff chassis, you've bought the wrong car.

Ernie Ball

Henry Ford III wrote:

Any open top car will suffer from scuttle shake. Think of a shoe box, which is much stronger with the lid on. Adding bracing is an attempt to minimise the problem, but it cannot ever eliminate it.

Whatever. I guess you must know my car better than I do. I repeat: there is virtually no scuttle shake with the hard top off. With the hard top on, there is zero. Forgot about that hard top, didn't you?;)

I've been driving for 28 years and I know quite a bit about the subject. So your condescending little lessons are a bit misplaced.

There are lots of open-topped cars that have rigidity comparable to that of cars with roofs even in stock configurations. The Honda S2000 and the Lotus Elise are two that come to mind.

p.s. If you want a properly stiff chassis, you've bought the wrong car.

Let's make this less abstract: Maybe you should tell me what car I should've bought... Your logic, according to which chassis stiffness is apparently the only consideration, would seem to dictate that I should've bought a Corolla.

Better yet, let's see a picture of your car.

I wanted the best pure driving car I could get. And I have it, thanks. There is a lot more to driveability than chassis stiffness alone: low centre of gravity, power-to-weight ratio, suspension, mid-engined RWD with weight distribution providing a low polar moment of inertia, performance tyres, light weight, etc.

CJhaughey

There are 2 Toyotas in our family a 00 1.4 Corolla Estate, and a 97 Landcruiser Commercial SWB.
The 'Cruiser has 190 thousand miles on the clock and the only stuff that has had to be replaced so far was a pair of rear shocks at 108k and a starter motor at 150k, I service at 5k intervals and always use genuine toyota parts and oil.
I have never owned a more reliable car.
My wife had/has a Saab classic 900 Turbo before the Corolla and she loved it but the day to day reliability of the corolla is the overriding factor.
What I and she both want in a vehicle is the ability to get in the morning and turn the key and go, no nasty surprises or failures.
Parts are affordable and available easily if you need them.
and if you really want to know why Toyotas are so popular ask the Taliban they prefer Hilux's and in Africa the Toyota Landcruiser is the vehicle of choice do you ever wonder why? I would hazard a rough guess and say that reliability is the overriding factor.
And in this first world country with third world infrastructure that is what is needed and wanted by the majority of the toyota driving populace.

esskay

I recently travelled from Siem Reap in Cambodia to Bangkok in Thailand on possible the worst main road ever. It is a dirt road and has some of the biggest pot holes known to humanity. It's so bad it even has it's own website :-) http://www.talesofasia.com/cambodia-overland-bkksr-roadcon.htm .I took a taxi (cause it takes 3 hours less than a bus) and on the way I noticed the the only cars to travel this road are Toyota Camrys. I never saw such a testament to reliability ever before. In the many hours on the road all I saw was cows, buses, tractors and camrys. That has to mean something?

Henry Ford III

Ernie Ball wrote:

Whatever. I guess you must know my car better than I do. I repeat: there is virtually no scuttle shake with the hard top off. With the hard top on, there is zero. Forgot about that hard top, didn't you?;)

I've been driving for 28 years and I know quite a bit about the subject. So your condescending little lessons are a bit misplaced.

There are lots of open-topped cars that have rigidity comparable to that of cars with roofs even in stock configurations. The Honda S2000 and the Lotus Elise are two that come to mind.



Let's make this less abstract: Maybe you should tell me what car I should've bought... Your logic, according to which chassis stiffness is apparently the only consideration, would seem to dictate that I should've bought a Corolla.

Better yet, let's see a picture of your car.

I wanted the best pure driving car I could get. And I have it, thanks. There is a lot more to driveability than chassis stiffness alone: low centre of gravity, power-to-weight ratio, suspension, mid-engined RWD with weight distribution providing a low polar moment of inertia, performance tyres, light weight, etc.

As you say yourself - whatever

Let's recap:-

1/. There is scuttle shake. Fine.
2/. With hard top on there is none. I simply don't believe you. There may be less, but a convertible with a hard top roof fitted can never be as structurally rigid as a fhc. Period.
3/. Forgive me - the S2000 and Elise (which has a T bar roof btw) may have very little scuttle shake. The S2000 still has some however. It's an engineering certainty that cannot be 100% removed. Therefore a convertible can never be the best handling car. The very fact that it's roof is absent means it's compromised to an extent from day 1.
4/. If you wanted the "best pure driving car" a convertible MR2, nice and all as it is, might not have been the best choice. But if you are happy fair enough. It's your money.
5/. This is a public message board. People post opinions. If you don't like mine perhaps the best thing to do is ignore it?
6/. I've also been driving quite a long time. c. 27 years. I drive a Ford Focus ST, and a Ford Escort MkII RS2000.

Vegeta

Henry Ford III wrote:

As you say yourself - whatever

Let's recap:-

1/. There is scuttle shake. Fine.
2/. With hard top on there is none. I simply don't believe you. There may be less, but a convertible with a hard top roof fitted can never be as structurally rigid as a fhc. Period.
3/. Forgive me - the S2000 and Elise (which has a T bar roof btw) may have very little scuttle shake. The S2000 still has some however. It's an engineering certainty that cannot be 100% removed. Therefore a convertible can never be the best handling car. The very fact that it's roof is absent means it's compromised to an extent from day 1.
4/. If you wanted the "best pure driving car" a convertible MR2, nice and all as it is, might not have been the best choice. But if you are happy fair enough. It's your money.
5/. This is a public message board. People post opinions. If you don't like mine perhaps the best thing to do is ignore it?
6/. I've also been driving quite a long time. c. 27 years. I drive a Ford Focus ST, and a Ford Escort MkII RS2000.

I am not questioning anything you have said but I was wondering if you were given the money what would you have bought. i.e. what is a better car for the money??

Henry Ford III

That's another question entirely.

prospect

Henry Ford III wrote:

I don't buy that Ernie. Scuttle shake is a fact of life. No open top car can ever be as stiff or as structurally rigid as a fhc. Simple physics.

Sorry, brain dead at the mo, but what is fhc?

Ernie Ball

Henry Ford III wrote:

Let's recap:-

Yes, let's. This a thread about Toyotas. In response to the claim that Toyotas are boring, I posted a pic of my car and stated that it isn't boring (I defy you to say that it is) and that it's the best pure driving car I've ever been in. Instead of taking your own advice (to wit: "This is a public message board. People post opinions. If you don't like mine perhaps the best thing to do is ignore it?"), you felt compelled to give me lectures on scuttle shake. You seem to think scuttle shake is the only thing that matters in the performance of a car: if it's present, then the car can't be a good driving car and if it's absent then the car can. That's a silly view. To take your shoebox analogy, which is a good one, it's like saying that no shoebox without a lid can be made as stiff as an ordinary shoebox with a lid. Both are absurd propositions. Modern purpose-built convertibles are not the same thing as saloons with their roofs hacked off.

2/. With hard top on there is none. I simply don't believe you. There may be less, but a convertible with a hard top roof fitted can never be as structurally rigid as a fhc. Period.

It can certainly be as rigid as your Ford Focus.:p You forget that I have a lot of bracing on the car as well as the hard top. It is virtually indistinguishable on the road from a purpose-built coupe. Even if it could be proved that it still has more chassis flex than a stock fhc (and I have my doubts), we're talking about tiny differences where the rest of the configuration of the car (weight, weight distribution, centre of gravity, etc.) will have a much greater effect on performance.

3/. Forgive me - the S2000 and Elise (which has a T bar roof btw) may have very little scuttle shake. The S2000 still has some however. It's an engineering certainty that cannot be 100% removed.

It's an engineering certainty, then, that it also can't be removed from a coupe. What's your point? You don't present any evidence for your view: you just keep hammering it like it's some kind of commandment. If, by definition, no convertible can ever be as stiff as a coupe, then no evidence will convince you. However, it is worth pointing out (again) that the car with the stiffest chassis is not always the best-handling car. Which is why this little non-sequitur of yours doesn't follow from anything you've said:

Therefore a convertible can never be the best handling car.

This is utter nonsense. It might be so if maximum chassis stiffness were the only consideration in handling. But that's a pretty naive view of automotive dynamics.

Anyway, I never said that my car was the best handling car in the whole wide world. I said it was the best pure driving car I've ever been in. You can dispute that if you like, but then you'll have to tell me what car I've been in that was better.;)

The very fact that it's roof is absent means it's compromised to an extent from day 1.

Mr. Ford, you of all people ought to know that automotive engineering always involves compromises. For example, virtually every car out there is compromised relative to mine when it comes to weight and polar moment of inertia. So I could just as easily say about every car out there that the fact that they weigh significantly more than one tonne and don't have their weight primarily in the centre means that they are all compromised "to some extent" from day 1.

Do you think your FWD Focus--excuse me, Focus ST--with its nice hatchback, extra weight, torque steer and high centre of gravity (but with the all-important roof) can keep up with my car in the twisties? If so, you are dreaming. It'll understeer you into the brush faster than you can say "what a fool I've been."

4/. If you wanted the "best pure driving car" a convertible MR2, nice and all as it is, might not have been the best choice. But if you are happy fair enough. It's your money.

A Lotus Elise would be my choice for best pure driving car. And if I could've afforded one, I might've bought one. Instead I bought something close. You may have noticed that the Lotus also has no roof (and is not, contrary to what you think, a T-bar; it's a Targa). But, according to your axiom (for which you've provided no evidence), it can never be the best choice because, well, it just can't. Never mind that it has a torsional stiffness of 10,000Nm/Deg. It has no roof, therefore it's compromised. Because Henry Ford III himself said so.

Ernie Ball

prospect wrote:

Sorry, brain dead at the mo, but what is fhc?

A fixed-head coupe (like a Porsche 911 or an Audi TT).