[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rassilon /img/forum/go_quote.gif how about pretty much every reliability rating (ie, consumer reports, etc)? Its a pretty well established fact that Honda, Toyota, Nissan are CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well built than the big 3 american makes.

again, prove this to me, substantiate the claim, as I obviously don't agree

in my experience, Nissan's are plastic pieces of crap which cost a fortune to maintain, and fall to pieces quite easily, Toyota's are reliable vehicles which I'd have no issues owning, GM and Ford's the same, Chrysler it really depends on the car (I've seen some bad ones (vans) and some good ones (jeeps, dodge trucks)), and I just outright hate Honda as a vehicle

I'm not saying there aren't faults with any car, but I really don't agree with the blanket, trendy thinking that "all american cars are always crap forever" and "all japanese imports are always the best car in the world forever"

 

[YamiTenshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rassilon /img/forum/go_quote.gif how about pretty much every reliability rating (ie, consumer reports, etc)? Its a pretty well established fact that Honda, Toyota, Nissan are CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well built than the big 3 american makes.

I would be careful citing Consumer Report as a reliable product review source, let's not forget that not too long ago they rated Bose as one of the best audio companies.

As for trucks, we live in a farm area where heavy towing and rough driving are needed on a daily bases and the majority of people out here have either a Ford or a Chevy truck. Once in awhile you'll see a Dodge, and very, very rarely you see a Toyota or Nissan truck.

We have a Chevy truck from the 1970s going on 500,000 miles with the original engine and transmission (the seats are wearing pretty thin though

) and a 1995 Chevy truck going on 200,000 miles. Never had any major problems with them. And don't forget that last year the two best selling autos (sedans and trucks included) were the Ford F150 and the Chevy Silverado.

We also have a 1997 Dodge Ram (diesel engine), and while it's true that the engine last forever, the interior is starting to fall apart, so I hesitate to recommend a Dodge, unless they've made some major changes to the interior in the last 12 years.

 

[grawk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should consider AVOIDING a brand new vehicle, and buying one between 1-5 years old. You won't get hit with depreciation, you won't support overproduction, and it'll be more green than a new prius. Any new car puts a huge environmental toll on the planet due to production, manufacturing, shipping, etc. YouTube - Hybrid and SUVs are both crap for our planet

It's alaska, trucks don't really depreciate. And begrudging someone in alaska a new truck because of it's impact to the environment is barking up the wrong tree...

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's alaska, trucks don't really depreciate.

agreed.

this is just based on living in rural areas in colorado and virginia, a truck holds value because it serves a functional purpose, whereas a sedan or sports car does not (or at least not "as much")

cash 68 as far as the environmental impact, reminds me of a lecture I sat in on about the utahn highway system (I know I've posted this before), the lecturer was talking about interstate highways and their impact on the state, someone asked "why not push towards trains, its better for the environment", lecturer's response was basically "so what? it isn't practical, highways and trucks is what we have, so its what you work with"

basically just becuase something is "best" doesn't mean its "right", if that makes sense? I think we all realize motorcars are an environmental impact, but very few people can simply deny the ownership of a vehicle (our society demands things too quickly, and in too large a quantity for us to utilize bikes, foot travel, etc, this is exaggerated in rural areas)

but I do applaud your view of the scenario (that you're honestly seeing its a non-sustainable process, but you have to consider, there is no existing alternative)

 

[appophylite]

Thanks grawk...its a bummer to hear that they couldn't install an ArcticLeash on your Pilot. I guess I better take that as a sign that if I go with the Ridgeline, I'm going back to regular extension cables again....

@ Rassilon: I didn't consider the Nissan Trucks. May have to take a look in that direction as well....

@cash68: Like grawk and obobskivich stated, trucks really don't depreciate all that much in Alaska, and more people up here are likely to put their sedans/station wagons/SUVs up on the used market than Pickup Trucks and the Pickup Trucks that are sold on the used market are either really old and not something I'm interested in or are near brand new and are sold for almost that much. In any case, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, in 2-3 years I might be leaving Fairbanks or even Alaska and in that event, the truck is going to end up becoming my parents, and they both have wanted brand-new off-the-lot trucks just once, which is why both myself and my father are buying them brand new. Otherwise, every vehicle we have ever owned has been a used car.

Thanks for all the responses everyone!

 

[mookowz13]

Depending on how much you're hauling, you coudl get away with a smaller truck like a Ford Ranger. I drive a '99 B4000 (same as a Ranger XLT 4x4) and I love the thing to death.

As for a sale pitch on toyota: my buddy drives s 1990' Toyota Truch (before the Tacoma), it has 500 000 clicks on it and the only major repair he's ever had is replacing the transmission (yes, his engine is still the original and it runs like a CHAMP).

I'd avoid the dodge, the one dakota I tested before getting my B4000 had really mushy steering on center and my buddy who has a dakota has had numerous issues with his transmission, luckily all those fixes were under warranty.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookowz13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Depending on how much you're hauling, you coudl get away with a smaller truck like a Ford Ranger. I drive a '99 B4000 (same as a Ranger XLT 4x4) and I love the thing to death. As for a sale pitch on toyota: my buddy drives s 1990' Toyota Truch (before the Tacoma), it has 500 000 clicks on it and the only major repair he's ever had is replacing the transmission (yes, his engine is still the original and it runs like a CHAMP). I'd avoid the dodge, the one dakota I tested before getting my B4000 had really mushy steering on center and my buddy who has a dakota has had numerous issues with his transmission, luckily all those fixes were under warranty.

the dakota is a really sad vehicle compared to the Ram, even the 1500, its probably the weakest showing in the "light pickup" arena, while the Ranger/B4000 (the Mazda thing you drive) is a great little trooper, same goes for the baby Chevy's (the S10 variants) and baby Toyota's

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif agreed. this is just based on living in rural areas in colorado and virginia, a truck holds value because it serves a functional purpose, whereas a sedan or sports car does not (or at least not "as much") cash 68 as far as the environmental impact, reminds me of a lecture I sat in on about the utahn highway system (I know I've posted this before), the lecturer was talking about interstate highways and their impact on the state, someone asked "why not push towards trains, its better for the environment", lecturer's response was basically "so what? it isn't practical, highways and trucks is what we have, so its what you work with" basically just becuase something is "best" doesn't mean its "right", if that makes sense? I think we all realize motorcars are an environmental impact, but very few people can simply deny the ownership of a vehicle (our society demands things too quickly, and in too large a quantity for us to utilize bikes, foot travel, etc, this is exaggerated in rural areas) but I do applaud your view of the scenario (that you're honestly seeing its a non-sustainable process, but you have to consider, there is no existing alternative)

Uh, rail requires population density that the USA doesn't have, so that's a really stupid example. Right now, given our current popluation density, a push toward a rail system would be a push toward failure.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uh, rail requires population density that the USA doesn't have, so that's a really stupid example. Right now, given our current popluation density, a push toward a rail system would be a push toward failure.

the discussion wasn't about consumer traffic, it was about truck traffic, which means commerical shipping, something we do a lot of in the US, and something rail isn't used enough for, and the example was to point out not anything to do with rail, but to do with "just because this would be "best" on paper, doesn't mean its the best answer"


and as far as "rail requires population density that the USA doesn't have, a push toward a rail system would be a push toward failure", Utah seems to be doing just fine

 

[grawk]

rail is pretty heavily used for transportation. The truck traffic handles the parts of the country not readily accessible by rail.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif rail is pretty heavily used for transportation. The truck traffic handles the parts of the country not readily accessible by rail.

sadly this is untrue

rail accounts for (iirc, I may be off by max 10%) roughly 20% of traffic, trucks handling around 70% of all shipping in the continental US

air traffic is sub 10%, and "misc" (like ferries, trams, pipelines (they aren't just for oil), etc) is lower than that

most of the US is accessable by rail, in the sense of major shipping centers, however the majority of all shipping is handled by interstate trucking (look at Wal-Mart, the entire supply chain is their private truck fleet, have you ever seen a Wal-Mart train?)

the primary things trains are used for include livestock (which I don't know exact figures on, but I assume it to be "50/50" with vehicle usage, in the sense that the train can only handle 50% of the travel), coal, various hazmat things (spent uranium, molten sulfur, chlorine, etc), and odds-and-ends shipping (like cars, bulk lumber, random "big" stuff type jobs)

 

[grawk]

Stuff is shipped by boat to the ports, on train from the ports to hubs, and then trucked from there. Trains can reach most of the country, but not efficiently. But really it doesn't matter. Walmart ships the way that's most efficient for walmart. If it actually was cheaper for walmart to use train, they would, guarantee it.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Stuff is shipped by boat to the ports, on train from the ports to hubs, and then trucked from there. Trains can reach most of the country, but not efficiently. But really it doesn't matter. Walmart ships the way that's most efficient for walmart. If it actually was cheaper for walmart to use train, they would, guarantee it.

see, this is only partially true, most traffic from ports is on a train for a very short period of time before breaking to interstate truck traffic, because, if like you claimed, truck traffic was only used for "small hops", the interstates wouldn't be laden with big rigs 24/7, and we wouldn't have over 10% of our population driving commerical trucks, over half of all truckstops filled at night, and nearly 100% of all rest stops full or overflowing with trucks at night (that doesn't support your "trains first" mentality)

because I'm really sick of arguing an arbitrary point that I know I'm right on, just read this:
Trucking industry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I told you, up to 10% off (as this lecture was nearly a year ago, and is entirely unrelated to my field of work (I was just REALLY REALLY bored one day on campus

)), truck traffic is 60% of all transportation in the US, rail is only 10%, and pipelines are nearly 20% (I'm guessing this does include oil and LP/NG)

 

[grawk]

That agrees, not disagrees, with what I was saying. Rail is used as much as it can be, but it's just not efficient enough.

Quote:

In modern times, railroads are primarily used to haul bulk quantities of cargo over long distances.[41] Unless a manufacturing or distribution facility has a direct connection to the railroad, the remainder of the trip must be handled by truck.[18] Recent implementation of "just in time" strategies have resulted in the increased usage of trucks to help satisfy businesses' fluid inventory needs. Using this strategy, businesses gain the ability to reduce the costs associated with excess inventory and larger warehousing facilities by requiring more frequent deliveries.[42][43][44] According to an industry group, many retail, commercial, and government services require daily or weekly deliveries to keep supplies or merchandise on hand. Many hospitals have also moved to "just in time" inventory systems. The nation's busiest gas stations require deliveries of fuel several times per day, while the average station receives fuel every two to three days. Grocery stores require deliveries of perishable food items every two to three days.[40]

 

[obobskivich]

you said rail was "heavily used", and I said thats untrue, rail is "partially used"

that quote doesn't entirely support your arguement, it supports mine about equally well(hauling outsize cargo or hazmat (because if a train crashes in the middle of nowhere and spills nasties, its less damaging than a truck crashing in the middle of a metro area, in theory))

basically its cheaper to just go from boat to truck, or factory to truck, than it is to put trains into the equation

trains could be utilizes so much more than they are, the current infastructure is (to a degree) capable of it, it simply goes unused (all of the state-to-state shipping could be done via rail, as you've suggested, but it isn't, the same is true for boat offloads, but this is rarely done, I think its stupid as well, but like the lecturing guy said "whats "best" isn't always best" (and I also draw my statistics/information from his lecture, forget his name, but he did hold a PhD in Civil Engineering and worked very closely with UDOT and the like))