Comments on: Kelly Blue Book Declares Tundra Has Best Full-Size Truck Resale Value

By: Mickey

Mickey — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:20:26 +0000

Congrats Charles to you and the person who bought the Tundra.

By: admin (Jason)

admin (Jason) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:43:58 +0000

Charles – Bring us up at the next sales meeting man! Talking about this site (which gets more than 20k visitors a month) will help you sell more trucks I think.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:20:56 +0000

I am a Toyota salesman in Las Vegas, and the Tundras (and all the other brands) selling kind of slowly, but I just sold one 3 days ago because the greater resale value over F150, so it is great information in this site.
Greetings
Chareles

By: Mickey

Mickey — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:44:55 +0000

My comments above. I don’t know why my name keeps dropping out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:43:58 +0000

Understand that TXTee. When I tried to trade a 03 crown victoreia LX Sport which wasn’t in the black book and the dealer tried to give me a black book on a regular crown vic I got up and stated last chance or I walk out and you get $0 and I’ll buy 2 vehicles someplace else. Then he asked what was kelly and NADA. I told him and he gave me btween kelly and NADA for trade in. The difference of $2,000.

By: admin (Jason)

admin (Jason) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:22:42 +0000

TXTee – Good advice. The sales tax benefit is a good catch.

By: TXTee

TXTee — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:30:28 +0000

Sell private party and put a little work into it and you’ll get what you want. Trade-ins are rarely ever in consumer favor with the exception of saving some sales tax.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:31:35 +0000

I’m glad we’re doing well in Kelly Blue Book. Only if the dealers would use that or N.A.D.A.. Now they that black book for auctions which is about $2,000 cheaper for them and that’s how much you lose when trading in your vehicle. Any mods done on your trade in they automatically go to that too.

By: admin (Jason)

admin (Jason) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:59:51 +0000

Tote Bar – You are correct. For many people, E85 isn’t available. For the people that do have access to the fuel, many can’t purchase it for less than the price of gasoline. For the lucky few who can buy it for less than gas, it’s not very fuel efficient (mileage is worse). Finally, E85 isn’t much better than gas from an environmental standpoint. My opinion is that E85 should be a very small part of a very big picture, and I agree that government regulators placed far too much emphasis on it.

By: Tote Barr

Tote Barr — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:34:32 +0000

I guess that we need to go along with the crowd offering a “flex-fuel” version of the Tundra, even though it is one of the biggest rip-offs around. We are supposed to be proud of a fuel that:
1-Costs more to make, both in dollars and in natural resources.
2-Creates far more in pollution in its manufacture than it saves when burning.
3-Reduces the Miles per Gallon significantly.
4-Costs more at the pump because you have to buy more of it to go the same distance as good ‘ol Gas.
5-In our area, at least, costs more per gallon than gasoline.
6-Cannot be shipped in pipelines like gasoline so it needs to be trucked from location to location.
7-Is harder on engines and fuel systems than gasoline.
In our state, as far as I have been able to locate, there are only 2 gas stations that carry e-85. Both are brand new stations, and both were told by Chevron that if they wanted to open, they had to have E-85 available.
I asked one of the station owners how there customer like it and was told “we have several people who have purchased 1 tank of E-85 and then refill with gasoline.
This is yet another example that proves that you only need to seem to be doing something to solve a problem, rather than actually solving it, if you’re the government.
If we are really going to use something other than gasoline, Natural gas is a far better alternative than “Corn Likker”.