Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

I'll get that info. if you are curious..I forget the model details at this point. They are the only tires that they could mount because no one makes run-flats in that size. I had checked around, and it's true they are hard to find. If you want to mount non run-flats we would have to change the rims out...which I might do if we decide to keep the car long term.

 

Ah you have one of those Siennas ? I feel your pain...
I am guessing the reason for run-flats is because they had not enough space for spare due to AWD system. Your Sienna does not have a spare right ?
I learned this, when I helped some family on their way back from VT. They were stuck in winter with AWD Sienna and ripped tire. I stopped to help (even if just hold the light for a guy) but thats where we find out there were no spare tire since it was AWD with run-flats.
We tore that Sienna apart looking for spare tire, then looked in manuall just to find out there is no spare tire.
Now that happened on Sunday where most tire places are closed, and Toyota dealer is closed too. So he got AAA to tow Sienna to nearest dealer and enterprise to rent him an SUV.
Pretty screwed up setup. I had seen people who change to winter tires, they put a spare on the roof basket.
It looks crazy but its a solution.

 

How many chevy ad's are in the magazine ? All that crap is add driven ( used to be a rep for a company and we would buy more ad time to get good marks ) I wouldn't give Goverment Motors a penny , after the bail out they got.

 

Yes, NO spare. Great setup for a car that is sold for the sole purpose of carting kids around! lol

 

Ah , yeah that is the most idiotic setup Toyota did to date.
I felt bad for those people. Mid winter, stuck on the side of the road in middle of nowhere with kids, on Sunday so all the stores are closed and hard time to get anybody including AAA to show up.
Any chance you can replace run-flats with something else and just mount spare inside ? ( I know what you talking about special tire, I went on internet for the guy to look if any store is open and what tires fit his AWD and indeed, those run-flats are custom to that Sienna)

 

In that case you shouldn't by a Chrysler or Ford either.

 

Yea, if you are an American that's kinda like cutting your nose off to spite your face....why root for the country to fail?!

 

I never understood why people find satisfaction in rooting for companies to fail. If they fail, thousands or millions of jobs are lost. The country gets killed economically on top of those families hurting. And when competition is lost, your products are worse off because the companies left over have less motivation to keep up with innovation and customer service.

 

Agreed. I always thought the GM bailout was the lesser of two evils.

 

Chrysler took it too. Ford took several major government loans to retool and stay afloat over the last few decades. All major automakers were pleading with the government to keep GM afloat too. If GM fell, others would follow because major parts suppliers would have to up their prices to stay afloat with most of their business disappearing. This would then cost these other automakers a crap ton more to build/repair their products.

 

Very true. I work at a GM dealer so I mostly think about how I would have lost my job, but the supply chain would have collapsed for a while in this country causing many others to lose their jobs too.

 

I thought the US govt made money on the bailout after they sold off the shares.

Plus your logic doesnt make any sense. Using the same argument then don't make investments or put money in the bank as they were bailed out plus don't buy insurance because most of it is backinsured by AIG.

We are just pawns dude in a rich man's game

 

Ford took loans to remain competitive. Ford began a downsizing to match future production in the early 2000's while GM just kept pumping out brands and vehicles. GM put themselves in their own grave and then the tax payer dug them out of that. Don't try to candy coat what happened. Was it best for the USA to keep them afloat? Yes in the short term, doubtful in the long term from my view point. The USA rewarded incompetence with tax payer dollars which is now the norm for the auto industry and the banking sector.

I also hold a beef with GM for taking a bailout and stock buy in from the Canadian government and then shutting down the OnStar offices here, shutting down the majority of the Canadian finance arm, and then shuttering their largest assembly facility up here. It was a slap in the face to a country that, dollar per population, gave a large bailout to keep them here producing vehicles. While I would buy a GM if there was one I really liked I can honestly say their company image will never be good in my eyes. My first two vehicles were GM, and unless something great that is clearly above all other options comes out from them, that will be all the vehicle I buy from them.

I also want to mention that a large part of my family used to work for GM. Now only one family member does. It's easy to find other jobs and dealers out there. The market demand for vehicles will always be there and there will always be the jobs associated with that demand to some extent. Now a few of my family members work for independent shops as mechanics, the banks in their finance arms, and own a few Hyundai dealers to make up for the GM BS.

 

Hmmm.. So if it's Ford, it's not a bailout, it's a loan to remain competitive. If it's GM, who was pushed into it by the Gov, it's a bailout. Neither of these have anything to do with the real cause of trouble for the Big 3 in Detroit which was labor unions forcing ridiculous pay/retirement packages which strangled them all once those gobs of workers retired.

GM was probably going to just declare BK, shed bad contracts and losing aspects of their business, retool in more tax friendly locations and do just fine long term. That was until a bailout was shoved down their throats to keep the workforce strong while the recession happened.

 

Ford did not go to the bailout meetings. Only Chrysler and GM did. Fords money came after the fact AND THEY PAID IT ALL BACK WITH NO STOCK OPTIONS INVOLVED! They didn't need to sell another stock option to pay off their loans and they certainly weren't going to declare bankruptcy if they weren't loaned any money.

Good, let GM move out. They moved out anyways. We should of let the consumer see them move all of their factories, which are mainly their now anyways, to Mexico and then the problem would of sorted itself out over time.

 

Thanks for the input. My problem with them trying run-flats is that they did it on an AWD Sienna...minivans and AWD are enough on tires.

 

Actually most automakers have been moving their factories to low tax states like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, etc. So it keeps the quality high and morale high with American made products but for much cheaper operating costs in lower tax environments compared to Michigan or other northern states.

By the amount of caps lock usage and exclamation marks, you seem like you have more personal issues with GM than most others lol.

 

I would just like to point out that even if all three US car manufacturers failed (Ford did not deserve to, and rightly would have gained market share had GM and Chrysler gone under), that would not have necessarily resulted in a loss of USA jobs. But it WOULD have shifted jobs from the Detroit area to the southeast USA, resulting in fewer union jobs. IMHO, that was the real driver for the administration in charge to provide a bailout. Preserve union jobs, and thus democratic voters.

Frank

 

GM makes more trucks in Mexico than in the USA. American made my ass . Want to know where every F150 comes from. The USA. That's where.

I used the caps lock because you are clearly in some sort of GM induced delusion and on Tacomaworld for kicks.

 

All of these loans and "bailouts" (actually loans if you read them) going back to Iacocca's days at Chrysler were sound business moves by the gov't. (hard to say that with a straight face). Had they not occurred, the resulting unemployment would have bankrupted the country, not just the company. We would still be paying the social costs. These were popular topics in business schools at the time, and these actions would be repeated if the conditions arose again. In many other countries primary industries are gov't supported during lean times or even all the time to stabilize employment.