 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / October 2008Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors
Bill Heard Enterprises closes its doors Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the company said in a statement. The company notified the stores general managers at 2 p.m. today, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke anonymously. High fuel prices, canceled floorplanning from GMAC Financial Services, a reliance on sales of pickups ... >Bill Heard Enterprises closes its doors > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >who spoke anonymously. High fuel prices, canceled floorplanning from >GMAC Financial Services, a reliance on sales of pickups ... And this: "As MBJ sister paper Atlanta Business Chronicle reported in July 2007, Bill Heard faced a $50 million deceptive advertising lawsuit and was bombarded with a litany of complaints from consumers in the states where it operated." Ref: http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2008/09/22/daily19.html -- "When you can't afford the gas to drive to the job that you are fixing to lose to pay for the house you can't afford... That's pretty much the recession tri-fecta..." --Jay Leno What, the government doesn't want to bail out this failing business as well?? I used to work at the Phoenix Bill Heard store, and believe me, the sales dept was pretty shady, they made chevy look bad. > >Bill Heard Enterprises closes its doors > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > tri-fecta..." > --Jay Leno On Sep 24, 5:06 pm, necromancer > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:53:03 -0400, "C. E. White" > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > bombarded with a litany of complaints from consumers in the states > where it operated." Thanks for the little piece of info. Otherwise, the Jim Higgins' of the world might otherwise try to use the closing of these dealerships as proof that Chevys are not selling anymore. > Ref:http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2008/09/22/daily19.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tri-fecta..." > --Jay Leno > On Sep 24, 5:06 pm, necromancer >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:53:03 -0400, "C. E. White" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> tri-fecta..." >> --Jay Leno Petty individuals project their inadequacies onto others rather than examine facts objectively. Your failure.  SignatureCivis Romanus Sum > coachros...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Sep 24, 5:06 pm, necromancer [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Petty individuals project their inadequacies onto others rather than > examine facts objectively. Your failure. Petty individuals search the "news" on a daily basis to "prove" their point on a subject, such as their hatered for a US like GM, and post it on a daily basis on the internet, usually on sites, such as the GM group. Somehow, these same indivduals almost always miss positive articles on a company like GM and therefore, don't post such articles. Wonder why? Gee, if you only listened the the Jim Higgins on the world, you might not know that GM produces a lot of kick-a.s vechicles. They also produce more 30-mpg vechicles than anyone. And they certainly don't recall more cars than they sell, like some other company that is so great. They also had the highest selling vechicle in the US last month, the Chevy Silverado, a PICKUP TRUCK, for Gods sake. I thought no one was buying them anymore!!!!!! > -- You are a moron, please, do all of us a favor, and take a hike, son! > Civis Romanus Sum- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet > >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bombarded with a litany of complaints from consumers in the states > where it operated." < Thanks for the little piece of info. Otherwise, the Jim Higgins' of < the world might otherwise try to use the closing of these dealerships < as proof that Chevys are not selling anymore Chevy is getting its a.s kicked in cars by Toyota, Honda and Nissan. Same with pickups. SUV sales are in the toilet for everyone. Except the small SUV's. Chevy has been building junk since the 60's. Brand loyalty is rapidly evaporating. Their market share is the incredible shrinking woman. Chevrolet excited folks with the prototype concept car the "Volt" and then the Harvard MBA's at GM redesigned it from a 400 mile range to 40 miles and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed > by a Harvard MBA! "they would actually say in the weekly sales meetings, “do anything, say anything, promise anything, lie if you have to, just get the people on paper, we’ll worry about the problems later”. “Attorney Barry Weathers calls Bill Heard “a cancer on the community” and says the problems reflect the company’s corporate culture. ” "the largest and nicest looking dealers are the ones that treat you poorly." "plenty of businesses that just could not figure out that their star salesman or distributor was costing them money" > > >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet > > >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed > by a Harvard MBA! "they would actually say in the weekly sales meetings, “do anything, say anything, promise anything, lie if you have to, just get the people on paper, we’ll worry about the problems later”. “Attorney Barry Weathers calls Bill Heard “a cancer on the community” and says the problems reflect the company’s corporate culture. ” You are talking about many Chevy and Ford dealers. Chrysler kind of cleaned that up some, but screwing people has been their strong suit for the past 75 years or so.That's why I drive a HONDA. > You are talking about many Chevy and Ford dealers. Chrysler kind > of cleaned that up some, but screwing people has been their strong > suit for the past 75 years or so.That's why I drive a HONDA. Now that is a laugh. Two of the most crooked dealers I know got in trouble selling Hondas. Check out what Rick Hendrick went to jail for (well until Clinton pardoned him). The local Honda dealer has been robbing people blind for at least 30 years. I refuse to even go on their lot. By comparison most of the local GM and Ford dealers are saints. To buy a Honda I have to go at least 50 miles to find an honest (or at least mostly honest) dealer. There are three or four Ford/Mercury dealers and at least that many GM dealers I would trust within 10 miles. And don't get me started on the crummy local Toyota dealers. The nearest decent Toyota dealer is 40 miles away. I can't comment on Chrysler dealers, they don't make anything I'd consider buying. Last time I bought a Plymouth was 1981 and that dealer went broke at least 15 years ago. Ed >> You are talking about many Chevy and Ford dealers. Chrysler kind of >> cleaned that up some, but screwing people has been their strong suit for >> the past 75 years or so.That's why I drive a HONDA. > Now that is a laugh. Two of the most crooked dealers I know got in trouble > selling Hondas. Check out what Rick Hendrick went to jail for (well until > Clinton pardoned him). The local Honda dealer has been robbing people > blind for at least 30 years. I refuse to even go on their lot. You can't find any brand of car where there isn't a bad dealer. Several years ago we had a Rolls Royce / Bentley dealer that was nailed. The point is when you have a bad Honda dealer you still have a GOOD CAR! < By comparison most of the local GM and Ford dealers are > saints. To buy a Honda I have to go at least 50 miles to find an honest > (or at least mostly honest) dealer. I don't worry about the dealer as much as I do the price I wind up paying for the car. I'm not looking for somebody to sleep with. > I can't comment on Chrysler dealers, they don't make anything I'd consider > buying. Last time I bought a Plymouth was 1981 and that dealer went broke > at least 15 years ago. Chrysler is building some decent cars. Their minivans are generally top rated or neat the top. The Jeeps do pretty well in their class. The Viper will still blow the doors off a Vette any day of the week. >>> You are talking about many Chevy and Ford dealers. Chrysler kind of >>> cleaned that up some, but screwing people has been their strong suit for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >years ago we had a Rolls Royce / Bentley dealer that was nailed. The point >is when you have a bad Honda dealer you still have a GOOD CAR! The difference between a Chevy and any other car in quality is infinitesimal. I've had fleet Chevies, and sometimes Fords, at work for 30 years and hardly ever have a problem. My last Chevy was a 95 Caprice that did not need a single major repair in the 13 years and 135,000 miles it was in our fleet. Just look at the JD Power ratings and once you normalize them to problems per CAR, not per hundred cars, you see there is barely a dimes worth of difference between any of the top half of the list. Why do you hate America? >< By comparison most of the local GM and Ford dealers are >> saints. To buy a Honda I have to go at least 50 miles to find an honest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >rated or neat the top. The Jeeps do pretty well in their class. The Viper >will still blow the doors off a Vette any day of the week. > The difference between a Chevy and any other car in quality is > infinitesimal. I've had fleet Chevies, and sometimes Fords, at work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you see there is barely a dimes worth of difference between any of the > top half of the list. Why do you hate America? Company I worked for once had a fleet of Fords. At any given time 25% of the fleet was down. You can like your Chevy. I'll keep my Honda. " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message > Company I worked for once had a fleet of Fords. At any given time 25% > of the fleet was down. Just last week our workman's comp insurance inspector said when they had a fleet of Fords, at one point 50% were down. OTOH, many of the opinions expressed in newsgroups are from people that own one or two cars that were either very good or very bad. Every manufacturer has a few that are off the scale in each direction. >> Company I worked for once had a fleet of Fords. At any given time 25% >> of the fleet was down. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > own one or two cars that were either very good or very bad. Every > manufacturer has a few that are off the scale in each direction. Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of the BETTER ones. Water pumps went out with amazing regularity as did power steering units, the electrical system was a nightmare. They lived up to the nickname "FIX OR REPAIR DAILY!" We had something like 3500 of them. PURE sh.t! Then I got a 72 Chevy Impala. JUST AS BAD!! Recently had pretty good luck with Chrysler products. My neighbor traded his ailing pain in the a.s Silverado on a Toyota. He's feeling much better now. Hell there were some people who LOVED their Yugos. We've had folks here RAVE about the Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas they had. Cars are cars and a brand can have some good and some bad. I know a guy who had a Rolls Royce and had nothing but trouble with it for 2 years. They gave him a new one. The Vega and Pinto were two of the WORST cars ever built in America. Had to do when some of the old Nash cars with trunion suspensions would just kneel down one day and have to be towed. I know people who put 100,000 miles on them. I know people with old Kaisers with over a million miles on them and they are still running, yet in their day the Kaiser wasn't considered a very good car. By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Same with Ford. Which is why BOTH are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. There was a day when American cars were the best in the world. That was a LONG LONG LONG LONG time ago! Today the car companies are run by BEAN COUNTERS! Look at the corporate structure of all 3 American companies. Almost ALL the management types are MBAs. Even the head of ENGINEERING isn't an engineer but an MBA. No sales people. MBAs who keep their eye on the 'BOTTOM LINE!" Same sh.t that has our whole economy in the toilet. MBA's running the Treasury etc! " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message > Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. > By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Same with Ford. At that time, every car was crap compared to what anyone is turning out today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars. Anyone using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly. >" krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars. Anyone >using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly. Usual stuff from those whose last experience with GM/Ford was 30 years ago. Besides that, these types always managed to have 50 times the problems of just about everybody else. Wonder why. Can anybody explain why somebody who had a hood fly off 6 times on the same car isn't one lame-a.s? Just plain unadulterated dumb. I've been driving GM's, one Ford and one Chryco for 40+ years and only once had to get a tow. Best car I had by far was an '88 Celebrity with 2.8. Junked at 190k miles because of rust. Yet I had some Jap car lover tell me his father-in-law had the same car and the dashboard fell off! Just plain stupid. These guys aren't worth talking to. If they ain't plain lying, or plain don't know cars, they are plain jinxed and it's best to keep your distance so you don't catch any of that bad mojo from them. Having said that, I wouldn't buy a new design from GM until it's at least a few years old. Don't trust them either. BTW, I've nothing against the Jap cars, and recommend the Corolla. --Vic >>" krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >--Vic Well put Vic. I see so many people who have a Ford or Chevy and who have essentially no problems with them decide to replace it with a Toyota or Nissan because of all the damage from the trash talk. One gal had a late eighties Buick and similar vintage Chevy Silverado. Her and her husband put over 250K on each of them and replaced them because they *might* start to need work. He got a Cadillac but she bought a RAV. And when they do have a problem with their 'imports' they just brush it off as no big deal, but if they had the same problem with their "domestic" they whine and moan for months about it. Some people just can't stop living in the past. yes, back in the late 60's, early 70's there were some QC issues. Our fleet had late 60's early 70's Chryslers when I started working. Pretty much every time I turned my Plymouth Fury in for oil change I also had a list of repairs needed, rarely anything major but something always seemed to need something. After 1980 there was a huge turnaround with Ford and Chevy and it became very rare to ever have to fix anything - just get the oil changed and drive on. > " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars. Anyone > using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly. Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the GM 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are likely to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system. Ford can't build one that doesn't constantly break. Chrysler will freeze you out. My reference to 1970 was that GM and Ford haven't built a decent car since. In fact, I think the last decent Chevy was 1957. Maybe into 1960. Same with Ford. Are the American cars better today? Yeah about as good as a 1990 Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate to say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars. How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old salesmen. Then see the customers who call the salesmen "SONNY!" and you start to get the idea. It got so bad for Oldsmobile that their LAST customer died of old age.Without him there was no point going on. Maybe you miss the FACTS that sales for GM and Ford are down and both companies are dancing on the line of going bankrupt. The simple fact is that IF they built a decent car that people wanted they would be on top again. They are building the WRONG cars and building them poorly! But what do you expect when you have a Harvard MBA designing the car? A son of a bitch that doesn't even know how to START a car! Oh they have real engineers, but the MBA in charge runs it. Detroit no longer listens to the CAR people (engineers) not the sales folks who TRY IN VAIN to tell them what cars they need. All we know is BOTTOM LINE BOTTOM LINE. And you hear crap in board meeting of "Just why in hell do we need 5 lug bolts on the damn wheels? " CLUELESS! > Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard to > be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many > foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the GM > 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are likely > to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system. What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff from? > How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old > salesmen. It's clear that your intent here is to simply make yourself look foolish with meaningless statements. Oh well - your choice. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard to >> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many >> foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the GM >> 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are likely >> to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system. > What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff from? From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was particularly a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's. >> How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old >> salesmen. > > It's clear that your intent here is to simply make yourself look foolish > with meaningless statements. Oh well - your choice. Yes Buick is HUGE with Teen drivers! I understand. >>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>> to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > particularly a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's > into the 90's. You can't even be consistent with your own quote that you left in this post. Come on krm - spin up another twist. It's fun to watch you wind up. >>> How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old >>> salesmen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes Buick is HUGE with Teen drivers! I understand. You sir, are incapable of understanding... anything. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>> to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You can't even be consistent with your own quote that you left in this > post. Come on krm - spin up another twist. It's fun to watch you wind up. Please TRY to folllow, will you? I said 3.8 Liter and above. 4.3 Liter is ABOVE 3.8, isn't it? Or in your world is 4.3 liters SMALLER than 3.8 litres? >>>> How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old >>>> salesmen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Yes Buick is HUGE with Teen drivers! I understand. > You sir, are incapable of understanding... anything. I can't understand that the demographics for Buick sales are to SENIORS????????? >>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>>> to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ABOVE 3.8, isn't it? > Or in your world is 4.3 liters SMALLER than 3.8 litres? Hint: You stated... "But from a reliability view they ***still*** suck compared to many foreign brands." (emphasis added). Then you came back with "persisted through the 80's into the 90's.". Perhaps this would be a good time to advise you that this is currently the year 2008. How do you reconcile the word "still", with the phrase "through the 80's and into the 90's"? This is just typical of your style of argument throughout this thread. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>> hard to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 90's"? This is just typical of your style of argument throughout this > thread. Ford and GM cars into the 90's were still sh.t!!!!! The cars of 2008 are not as bad as they were a decade ago, but the foreign cars (some of them) are still MUCH better than American cars. >>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>>> hard to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > are not as bad as they were a decade ago, but the foreign cars (some of > them) are still MUCH better than American cars. Oye! This is too much. I've wasted way more time on you than is even remotely justified. Have a wonderful day. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>>> hard to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >are not as bad as they were a decade ago, but the foreign cars (some of >them) are still MUCH better than American cars. that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely any difference at all between they typical import and domestic. >> Ford and GM cars into the 90's were still sh.t!!!!! The cars of 2008 >>are not as bad as they were a decade ago, but the foreign cars (some of >>them) are still MUCH better than American cars. > that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely any > difference at all between they typical import and domestic. I did, and that's when I bought the Honda. >that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely any >difference at all between they typical import and domestic. JD Powers is much like the No Child Left Behind laws. Everyone wins everything with them... >>that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely >>any >>difference at all between they typical import and domestic. > > JD Powers is much like the No Child Left Behind laws. Everyone wins > everything with them... Have you actually looked at the JDP surveys? JD Powers sells data to all manufacturers (foreign and domestic). They conduct extensive scientifically based surveys. I have gotten surveys from both Consumer Reports and JD Power. The CR surveys are crap by comparison. JD Powers does indicate differences in reliability (for instance see http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115). They don't try to adjust the presentation of the data to exaggerate tiny difference like CR does. You might also look at http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/performance-and-design-ratings-by-brand. I believe some people trash JD Power data because it doesn't support there anti-domestic balance. It seems that some import fanatics aren't willing to accept that their beloved imports are not significantly better than the domestic brands. I am not a psychologist, but I think this may be a guilt reaction. At some level they feel guilty buying non-domestic cars, and have rationalized a decision that they may secretly feel is un-American by using the excuse that foreign cars are far superior. When confronted with the truth that there is very little difference between foreign and domestic products they try to defend their position by claiming the evidence is wrong. Self-delusion at it's finest. I don't have any qualms about buying foreign cars when they meet my needs/desires. Over the years I have owned as many foreign models as domestic models. On the other hand, I don't feel the need to prop up the quality of foreign brands by claiming they are better than they really are or to trash domestic models by making up bogus statistics. Ed >>>that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely >>>any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >They don't try to adjust the presentation of the data to exaggerate >tiny difference like CR does. It really depends on your point of view. They HORRIBLY skew the view people have of "reliability" by reporting PER 100 instead of PER VEHCILE. Look at the chart at the link you provided... They make it look to the casual reader that if you buy a Lexus you will have a problem level of 120. Naturally, everyone starts there are the baseline. So then they wonder "how's my Ford??" and look and find that Fords number is 204. WOW, in really round terms they are left with the impression that the Ford has nearly TWICE the problems the Lexus does. Yet the reality is that while in percentage there is a seemingly large difference, in actual number of repairs the difference is trivial to the typical owner, if he paid twice as much and bought a Lexus he's have 1.2 problems (I presume this is in the first year but didn't find it on the chart legend) but if he bought the Ford he'd have, HORRORS, nearly ONE additional warranty issue. My god, such a HORRIBLE tradeoff for the money saved!! It might mean he has to wait an extra 42 minutes in the dealer's waiting room while they fix that extra 0.8 problem. >You might also look at >http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/performance-and-design-ratings-by-brand. > >I believe some people trash JD Power data because it doesn't support >there anti-domestic balance. I trash it because it presents the data in a very misleading fashion that makes it seem there are huge differences between brands when the only people who could possibly care are the automakers themselves since it's they who have to pay these warranty costs. To the customer these differences are less then trivial. It seems that some import fanatics aren't >willing to accept that their beloved imports are not significantly >better than the domestic brands. I am not a psychologist, but I think [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Ed In reality what ALL of the listings show is that ALL manufactures have a failure rate between of between 1% and 2%, which is the AVERAGE failure rate for ALL manufactured products. What one really needs to look our is how much am I going to pay to drive home a particular vehicle. Is it really worth paying 20% to 30% more to drive home a vehicle that has a failure RATE less than 1/2 of a percent less than another? ;) >>I don't have any qualms about buying foreign cars when they meet my >>needs/desires. Over the years I have owned as many foreign models as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>Ed Yes, especially when that lower failure rate comes with better performance, handling, and ergonomics. Doubly so when you rely on said vehicle to get you around every day and you can afford absolutely zero downtime. I'm currently running into this issue with my company car... it needs repaired but I need it every day so when can I get it into the shop? nate > In reality what ALL of the listings show is that ALL manufactures have a > failure rate between of between 1% and 2%, which is the AVERAGE failure rate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> Ed Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Statistical analyses and quantification was obviously not one of the classes you took in college, if that is what you believe. These type of reports are statistical AVERAGES of hundreds of thousands of vehicles and they are NOT quantified. I. E. is the failure a bad tranny or simply a rattle in the dash? With a failure rate DIFFERENCE among ALL brands of less than .005 percent, that is not logical. No matter which brand one chooses, the statistical odds are 98% will NOT have a failure, and less than 2% that you will. Why would one spend 20% to 30% MORE in the HOPE they will NOT get one of the 2%, when statistically one is far more likely to get one of the 98%. LOL > Yes, especially when that lower failure rate comes with better > performance, handling, and ergonomics. Doubly so when you rely on said [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> really worth paying 20% to 30% more to drive home a vehicle that has a >> failure RATE less than 1/2 of a percent less than another? ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:52 PM Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors >>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:04:08 -0700, Ashton Crusher >>> <demi@moore.net> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > an extra 42 minutes in the dealer's waiting room while they fix that > extra 0.8 problem. I think most people can do the math. It common to present data in large numbers. Commodity prices are often quoted as per 100 lb, or per ton, etc. My point was that at least JD Powers gives you the raw numbers. CR gives you little circles that tend to indicate very good or very bad, but never makes it clear that the difference between very good and very bad is trivial in many cases. CR tries to make small differences seem very large. At least with JD Powers, I can do the math. Ed >>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard to >>> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was particularly >a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's. Gee, that must be why my 89 4.3 at 184,000 original miles with neither the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it. So you even have a drivers license??? >>> How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old >>> salesmen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes Buick is HUGE with Teen drivers! I understand. >>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from > ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it. Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm? >>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm? I had teh 4.3L in my '95 Jimmy. http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/jimmy_sm.jpg (That's the for sale picture I took.) Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to reach there. It was probably the most trouble-fee engine I've had (outside of the injector spider). The only reason I got rid of it was because I wanted more seating and ended up with a minivan. So far, my 5.3L V8 on the Avalanche is also doing quite well. I've only got 40K miles in a little over two years, but it hasn't had one issue. Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change fluids at a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based fluids while doing said engine fluid changes. :P Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based fluids > while doing said engine fluid changes. :P Followup abuse detected. [plonk] Signaturehttp://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com 5759 Year according to Jewish calendar 4696 Year according to Chinese calendar 1063 Total # of years that Jews went without Chinese food >> Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change fluids >> at a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [plonk] OMFG! I hace been plonked! The brutality of teh intraweb! What am I going to do?? Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>> Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change >>> fluids [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What am I going to do?? 5 bux says he read your reply. Regards, JR >>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>> hard [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > reach > there. Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem. >> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year >> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past > 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem. Isn't that why they put the little red line there - so you won't go past it? IIRC, I did reach there a few times. Particularly when I got my injectors fixed. I was supposed to blow out extra carbon deposits after pouring in some SeaFoam. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular >>> year [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Isn't that why they put the little red line there - so you won't go past > it? Most engines don't blow seals at 6K. >>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular >>>> year [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Most engines don't blow seals at 6K. Really? I wonder what my lawnmower engine would do at 6,000K. Seriously, if GM had designed the engine (we're still talking the 4.3L here, right?) to be a high-revving engine then they wouldn't have put a big red line at 5500 RPM and stopped the gauge at 6000 RPM. To me that's an indication that one shouldn't even try to go past the value. Dunno. Just common sense. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular >>>>> year [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I wonder what my lawnmower engine would do at 6,000K. Clever. As an encore do you stick your head into an airplane propeller when it is revving up? >>>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular >>>>>> year [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Clever. As an encore do you stick your head into an airplane propeller > when it is revving up? Isn't it funny how you only reply to what you want too, and delete the rest. Something I have seen you do since you got here. >>>>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular >>>>>>> year [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Isn't it funny how you only reply to what you want too, and delete the > rest. Something I have seen you do since you got here. And that is WRONG because?????? Is there a LAW that I must respond to every utterance of drivel you post???? >>>>>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my >>>>>>>> particular [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And that is WRONG because?????? Is there a LAW that I must respond to > every utterance of drivel you post???? No, it isn't wrong. It just shows that you are a liar who pulls facts out of his a.s, and won't answer any challenge he doesn't want too (or one he knows he will loose). By the way, have you even reached puberty yet? Your typing style of ALL CAPS and ??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! makes you look like a kid on AOL. >>>>>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my >>>>>>>>> particular [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > No, it isn't wrong. It just shows that you are a liar who pulls facts out > of his a.s, Okay CHEVY RULES! Much better than the crappy Lamborghini! > Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past > 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem. No - he probably did not miss that part. More likely he chose to ignore it because it is foolish - like everything else you've posted. There is no need to take the engine above it's red-line, so your point is moot. Unlike Japanese engines, GM engines build more torque at lower RPM's and there is no need to rev that high. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past >> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem. > > No - he probably did not miss that part. More likely he chose to ignore > it > because it is foolish - Yeah, well, since the tach only went to 6,000 rpm, and there's this big-assed red line from about 5500 rpm up, I'd say, "no." I did not go past it. Anyone who does deserves what they get. > like everything else you've posted. There is no > need to take the engine above it's red-line, so your point is moot. > Unlike Japanese engines, GM engines build more torque at lower RPM's and > there is no need to rev that high. Yeah, my Maxima wouldn't even come alive until about 4500 rpm. The Jimmy rarely got above 3000 rpm, even when accelerating uphill onto the freeway. IIRC, the Maxima redlined at 8000 rpm, and didn't even flinch until 6500 rpm. Of course it was a dual-overhead cam engine, compared to the single-cam 4.3L. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past >> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem. > > No - he probably did not miss that part. More likely he chose to ignore > it because it is foolish - like everything else you've posted. There is > no need to take the engine above it's red-line, so your point is moot. Oh really? So you NEVER put your foot in your dainty little Chevy............... >>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard >>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm? Why would I when the redline is around 5K? It's hit 5K plenty of times. >>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>> hard [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Why would I when the redline is around 5K? It's hit 5K plenty of > times. Ever want to go FAST in your Chevy????? >>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>>> hard [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ever want to go FAST in your Chevy????? Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past the HP/Torque peaks. You are an absolute and complete idiot and no doubt a troll. I'll not be wasting anymore time on you. ... >>>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be >>>>>>>> hard [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past > the HP/Torque peaks. Do you ALWAYS have to whip out your penis to prove your manhood? Everyone else had the good sense to allow this subject to DIE. Now that you are ATTEMPTING to portray yourself ad an ENGINE EXPERT are you aware that some folks built the Chevy engines to run in excess of 7K rpm? Lots of people making camshafts etc for that purpose. BUT please show us your EXPERTISE again! >> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of people making camshafts etc for that purpose. BUT please show us your > EXPERTISE again! No - you whipped your penis out and it landed right in your own mouth. There you go again - ignoring what was stated, and running off in some irrelevant direction. Dude - you are whacked. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >>> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dude - you are whacked. Tell me something. Have you ever driven over 65 MPH? Ever even SAT in a race car? Know ANYTHING of engines? Know that Chevy engines were famous for being high winding engines, compared to others? Put a good cam in a small block Chevy and 7K is not unusual , some drag cars turn as high as 11K. SPARE ME your sh.t. You may THINK you know EVERYTHING about cars. BUT you are just the typical Chevy DORK! Who thinks going over 80 is FAAAASSSSSSTTTTT! >>>> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >>>> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > you are just the typical Chevy DORK! Who thinks going over 80 is > FAAAASSSSSSTTTTT! Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin twister, spin. This thread has *never* been about building up Chevy engines. The original point was not about engines with a cam. The original point was your foolish comment about blowing up 3.8L's by over-revving them and about 3.8L's not being good for more than 6 grand. It was pointed out to you that they don't need to rev higher than that because they make plenty of torque throughout their power band for their intended road use. Then, you try to hide behind some meaningless crap about cams and drag cars. Do you really know anything about engines besides what you read in Hot Rod magazine? Ever really touched an engine? Ever built one? Didn't think so. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout > this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin > twister, spin. This thread has *never* been about building up Chevy > engines. The original point was not about engines with a cam. The > original point was your foolish comment about blowing up 3.8L's by > over-revving them and about 3.8L's not being good for more than 6 grand. I said that the Chevy V-6;s have a tendency to blow the rear main seals if you take them over 6K. That stands. The engine as made is for a redline at about 5K. >> Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout >> this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you take them over 6K. That stands. The engine as made is for a redline at > about 5K. So... don't take them over 5K? You know, the redline? What's the problem? geez, I think you just like to argue to argue. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>> Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout >>> this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So... don't take them over 5K? You know, the redline? What's the > problem? Well that was my point. You CAN take it over 6K but when you do the rear main goes. My ONLY point. Get a cam in it and you can take the Chevy engine to 10K or more. Of course when you buy a hot cam they generally give you seals rated for the job. Reply-To: "Mike Marlow" <n...@none.com> From: "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@windstream.net> Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:26:14 -0400 >>>> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >>>> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > small block Chevy and 7K is not unusual , some drag cars turn as high as > 11K. SPARE ME your sh.t. You may THINK you know EVERYTHING about cars. BUT > you are just the typical Chevy DORK! Who thinks going over 80 is > FAAAASSSSSSTTTTT! Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin twister, spin. This thread has *never* been about building up Chevy engines. The original point was not about engines with a cam. The original point was your foolish comment about blowing up 3.8L's by over-revving them and about 3.8L's not being good for more than 6 grand. It was pointed out to you that they don't need to rev higher than that because they make plenty of torque throughout their power band for their intended road use. Then, you try to hide behind some meaningless crap about cams and drag cars. Do you really know anything about engines besides what you read in Hot Rod magazine? Ever really touched an engine? Ever built one? Didn't think so. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREM...@alltel.net Mike, take a look at this link: http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com. This will explain a lot about the KOOK you're trying to deal with here. (His daughter is porn star, "Brianna Bragg") White trash, the whole bunch of them. > Mike, take a look at this link: http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com. This > will explain a lot about the KOOK you're trying to deal with here. (His > daughter is porn star, "Brianna Bragg") White trash, the whole bunch of > them. No surprise in that. It's just what you would expect from a guy like this. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net DAVID MOORE > Mike, take a look at this link: http://www.aboutken. This > will explain a lot about the KOOK you're trying to deal with here. (His > daughter is porn star, "Brianna Bragg") White trash, the whole bunch of > them. Oh golly my INTERNET STALKER is here! David Moore who has devoted 10 YEARS to stalking me and many thousands of hours with his obsessive website. No job, no life apart from his OBSESSION with me. Reply-To: "Mike Marlow" <n...@none.com> From: "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@windstream.net> Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:26:14 -0400 >>>> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >>>> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > small block Chevy and 7K is not unusual , some drag cars turn as high as > 11K. SPARE ME your sh.t. You may THINK you know EVERYTHING about cars. BUT > you are just the typical Chevy DORK! Who thinks going over 80 is > FAAAASSSSSSTTTTT! Here's what I know... you are whacked. Just like you've done throughout this thread, you keep twisting things to make irrelevant points. Spin twister, spin. This thread has *never* been about building up Chevy engines. The original point was not about engines with a cam. The original point was your foolish comment about blowing up 3.8L's by over-revving them and about 3.8L's not being good for more than 6 grand. It was pointed out to you that they don't need to rev higher than that because they make plenty of torque throughout their power band for their intended road use. Then, you try to hide behind some meaningless crap about cams and drag cars. Do you really know anything about engines besides what you read in Hot Rod magazine? Ever really touched an engine? Ever built one? Didn't think so. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREM...@alltel.net Mike, take a look at this link: http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com. This will explain a lot about the KOOK you're trying to deal with here. (His daughter is porn star, "Brianna Bragg") White trash, the whole bunch of them. DAVID MOORE STALKER >>>>> Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over >>>>> redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Mike, take a look at this link: http://www.aboutken NO surprises? Are you dimly bright enough to see an ANONYMOUS REMAILER? Have somebody explain to you WHY that's significant, and WHY it is significant that the website MUST be OFFSHORE. Then, dumbass, ask yourself WHY he posted 5 copies under different remailers. While you are at it BUBBA - pin ALL your hopes, ALL of them that your alliance with David Moore will help you carry the day that the 3.8 is the BEST ENGINE EVER BUILT! > Are you really the complete moron you appear to be? Running over > redline won't make you go faster since you have LESS power once past > the HP/Torque peaks. You are an absolute and complete idiot and no > doubt a troll. I'll not be wasting anymore time on you. I'll point out the obvious - if you can actually run the engine over the redline, you will go faster. Now if you car doesn't have enough power to get past the redline... Ed >It's clear that your intent here is to simply make yourself look foolish >with meaningless statements. Oh well - your choice. For most of the 20th century, What's good for General Motors is good for the USA--the famous and arrogant 1950s quote by the late GM ceo/Eisenhower Administration secretary of defense Charles Wilson--was part of the American fabric. Google search Still searching for the other two. OK buttercup?? >> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard to >> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It's clear that your intent here is to simply make yourself look foolish >with meaningless statements. Oh well - your choice. At least he's good at it. Speaking of Buick.... If it's such an 'old man's car', why is it one of the hottest selling cars in China??? Could it be that the Chinese have not been brainwashed into believing it and simply evaluate the car based on what it is? And deciding that they actually find it a very good car? > Speaking of Buick.... If it's such an 'old man's car', why is it one > of the hottest selling cars in China??? Could it be that the Chinese > have not been brainwashed into believing it and simply evaluate the > car based on what it is? And deciding that they actually find it a > very good car? Seems that is mostly the Minivan and SUV's. >> Speaking of Buick.... If it's such an 'old man's car', why is it one >> of the hottest selling cars in China??? Could it be that the Chinese [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Seems that is mostly the Minivan and SUV's. Every time you post you show your ignorance. It's the Buick Midsize car they love, not minivans and SUVs. I know, I've been there and seen what they drive. I suspect you have not ventured far from your parents basement. >>> Speaking of Buick.... If it's such an 'old man's car', why is it one >>> of the hottest selling cars in China??? Could it be that the Chinese [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seen what they drive. I suspect you have not ventured far from your > parents basement. Articles I have seen show that the minivan is the big seller, then the cars and then the SUV, but it is the minivan and SUV's that are going wild in China. > > " krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate to > say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars. Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a moron, and stupid, to boot. Go back to the Toyota group. Leave us alone, here. On second thought, stick around and show us your stupidity, AGAIN! GM's 3.8 engine's are bulletproof. They just run and run and run and run. Got a lot of horsepower, as well. Put a supercharger on them, and they are downright FAST. Drive them right, and they get over 30 MPG easily. GM has sold millions of cars with the 3.8 engine over the years. Unless the buyers of these cars were as stupid as you, I would think they bought them because the cars with the 3.8 engine ARE realible. I don't have to take your postings to convince me the 3.8's are bad engines. Got a couple of them in my driveway. 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP, bought new, wonderfull car, fully loaded, runs well to this day, with little problems. Can smoke the tires on takeoff if needed,also gets 30mpg if driven right. 2006 Grand Prix, with standard 3.8. CR said the car was "mediocre" in their review. I immediatedly knew it must be one helluva car and bought one. Two years and 30000 miles, the car has NEVER been in the shop, and in a recent 300 mile round trip (highway) averaged 32.5 mpg. I really dont give a sh.t if you believe that or not, I know it happened. Does this sound like crap to you??? Sing the praised of the Toyota's and Honda's all you want, but quit knocking the products that you know little of, other than what you read in CR, or drove 40 years ago. > How can I say this? Go into a Buick dealership. See the 70 year old > salesmen. Then see the customers who call the salesmen "SONNY!" and you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BOTTOM LINE. And you hear crap in board meeting of "Just why in hell do we > need 5 lug bolts on the damn wheels? " CLUELESS! > Can smoke the tires on > takeoff if needed, My car has a computer that prevents useless wheel spin at "takeoff". Signature"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics." Audi Owner's Manual >> Can smoke the tires on >> takeoff if needed, > > My car has a computer that prevents useless wheel spin at > "takeoff". KIDS think wheel spin is FAST. Right up till they get on a dragstrip and face the timers. Which was the downfall of the Corvettes on the dragstrips in the late 60's. No way to hold the a.s end down. 90% of the horsepower as wasted. >> Can smoke the tires on >> takeoff if needed, > > My car has a computer that prevents useless wheel spin at > "takeoff". So does my car, but it also has a switch so I can turn that off. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > My car has a computer that prevents useless wheel spin at > "takeoff". *Real* cars don't have computers. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:13:23 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, > something compelled coachros...@hotmail.com, to say: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Audi Owner's Manual My car has a little button than is labled "traction control disabled",, or something to the likes of that. When I push that little button, for whatever reason, the front wheels will spin and smoke a whole bunch if I push the accelerator to the floor on takeoff. Now, that "may" be considered useless, but this car will do EXACTLY what I said it will do. Don't really know what this has to do with the laws of physics, anyway. Now why don't you politley get in your Audi and please, take a hike, son! > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate to > say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars. > Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a > moron, and stupid, to boot. > GM's 3.8 engine's are bulletproof. Really? TOTALLY BULLETPROOF? This is just the INTAKE gaskets. http://www.dsengine.com/gmgasket/index.html "Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4 Liter engines. We have also seen this failure on some of the newer General Motors V8 engines." "The intake manifold gaskets on these engines are prone to failure. After so many cycles of heating and cooling the gaskets no longer seal the engine coolant passage in the upper portion of the engine. When this seal is breached, coolant begins to mix with engine oil. If the failure is caught in time, the gasket only need be replaced. If the engine is run for a long time the coolant can dilute the engine oil and cause a failure of the engine bearings. Depending on the severity of the failure your engine could be damaged before you know it. In all cases - its important to keep an eye on your gauges and warning lights, as it could mean the different between a minor repair and a major repair" BULLETPROOF you said. http://www.alldata.com/TSB/07/830708ir.html < Got a lot of horsepower, as well. Hmmmmmm ever seen a 4.0 litre Jeep inline 6 drag a Chevy blazer with the 4.3? Why does the Jeep win? < Put a supercharger on them, and they are downright FAST. Put a supercharge on a Yugo and it gets faster. Who wants a fast turd? >> Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a >> moron, and stupid, to boot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Liter engines. We have also seen this failure on some of the newer General > Motors V8 engines." Not to defend the design problems of the 3.1 and the 3.4 - which if you ever spent any time in the gm group, you would know are loudly critiqued issues within this group, but you just beg to be shot with this post. This is a classic example of why you cannot be part of a discussion. You are a moving target that can't seem to follow a train of thought. The real give-away of someone who has no clue is that they continually throw peripheral and random stuff into the discussion, that has nothing at all to do with the topic under discussion. Consistent with the way you've embarassed yourself throughout this thread, you've done it yet once again. Note the original comment above. It speaks specificially to the 3.8l engine. That comment was in direct response to your earlier uninformed blathering about the 3.8l engine. Your response? Throw out some irrelevant fact about two other engines. Sorry fellow, but you lost this round, just like the others. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a >>> moron, and stupid, to boot. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to do with the topic under discussion. Consistent with the way you've > embarassed yourself throughout this thread, you've done it yet once again. Same family of engines. > BULLETPROOF you said. > > http://www.alldata.com/TSB/07/830708ir.html This list is for a 1983 Buick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of them are not even for actual problems, but are just notifications of changed procedures or specifications (like Engine - Use of 'Surface Conditioning Disks' or Tires - Nitrogen Gas Usage or A/T - Dexron®(R)-VI Fluid Information ). This proves zero. Service Bulletins are not an indicator of quality. Honda and Toyota release service bulletins as well, but the big difference is they tend to release fewer and restrict access to some of the more important data. My SO got a RAV4 in 2006 right after the new version was released (2007 Model). The cruise control was weird, so I purchased a one day subscription from the Toyota Information Service to get access to the service bulletins to see if there was a bulletin for the problem. There were over 40 that applied to a vehicle that had been on the market for a month. Oh what a feeling. Just as is the case for the bulletins listed on the page you cited, most were for minor things, information updates, or maintenance instructions. A few were for more serious issues. Unfortunately there was not one that addressed the weird cruise control. After that, I researched the problem further and discovered it was "normal" for that vehicle. Normal CRAP. But otherwise the vehicle is fine. Here is a list for some recent 4 cylinder Honda Accords: http://www.alldata.com/TSB/24/042401b9.html (for a 2004 Model Accord - compare the list to that for the 25 year old Buick you cited) http://www.alldata.com/TSB/24/83240104.html (for a 1983 Accord - plenty here for what was essentially one limited model) http://www.alldata.com/TSB/24/052401b9.html http://www.alldata.com/TSB/24/062401b9.html http://www.alldata.com/TSB/24/072401b9.html You are ridiculously biased. Ed >> BULLETPROOF you said. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This proves zero. Service Bulletins are not an indicator of quality. Honda > and Did you miss the recalls on the rear main seals? >>> BULLETPROOF you said. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Did you miss the recalls on the rear main seals? You are kidding right? What does " Rear Main Seal - Installation Procedure Revised " imply? TO me it implies that GM changed the procedure for installing a rear main seal. You don' think Honda issues similar service bulletins? For instance - "Tool - Crankshaft (Flywheel End) Seal Installation." Don't you think a Honda service bulletin titled "Engine - Sudden Loss of Compression " is more ominous than a Buick TSB titled " Rear Main Seal - Installation Procedure Revised "? Automotive Recall and Technical Service Bulletin Titles for 1983 Honda Accord L4-1751cc 1800 EK1. TSB Number & Issue Date TSB Title 92019 APR 92 Recall - Fuel Filler Pipe TSB Number & Issue Date TSB Title 85036 AUG 85 Campaign - Rear Window Defogger TSB Number & Issue Date TSB Title 07-030 OCT 07 A/C - Refrigerant Leak Detection 06-068 OCT 07 Steering - Vehicle Pulls/Drifts to the Left/Right 99-030 FEB 07 Body - Recommended Sealers/Repair materials 07-008 FEB 07 Body - Unibody Repair Guidelines 99-062 JAN 07 Paint - Industrial Fallout Paint Damage 06-082 DEC 06 Tires - Tubless Tire Repair Information 99-018 NOV 06 Tools - Required Special Tools And Equipment 00-088 OCT 06 Disc Brake System - Brake Disc Refinishing Guidelines 00-022 MAR 00 Torque Converter Oil Seal - Installation Tool 97-015 DEC 99 Service Publications - Availability & Ordering 98-051 AUG 98 Special Tool Loan Program 98-001 FEB 98 Engine/Transmission - Hydraulic Lift Truck usage 86-020 MAY 97 Brakes - Disc Refinishing Procedure 97-027 MAY 97 Tools - Denso HLD-100 Halogen Leak Detector 97-020 MAR 97 Tools - New Fuel Pressure Gauge and Replacement Parts 96042 SEP 96 Tools - Power Steering Pressure Gauge 89004 MAY 96 Required Special Tools & Equipment 96014 FEB 96 Tools - Belt Tension Gauge Calibration and Repair 94025 AUG 94 Steering - Wheel Oscillates or Has a Shimmy 88012 AUG 94 Tools - Exacta Code Key Cutter ATRATB208 JAN 94 A/T - No Upshift No Line Pressure After Rebuild ATRATB200 DEC 93 A/T - Starts In Wrong Gear/No Reverse 91019 FEB 93 Emissions - Label Replacement Information 92041 NOV 92 Engine - Vehicle Fails State I/M Emission Test ATRATB125 AUG 92 A/T - Bind-Up In 4th Gear ATRATB116 JUN 92 A/T - Noise Going Into or Out Of Reverse SN920505 MAY 92 A/C - Odors From Vents SN920301 MAR 92 Parasitic Draw - Test Clarifications ATRATB090 JAN 92 A/T - 4 Speed Pressure Specifications SN911201 DEC 91 Inside Rear View Mirror - Repair Kit Availability ATRATB078 NOV 91 A/T - How To Use A Pressure Gauge ATRATB069B SEP 91 A/T - 4 Speed Identification 91019 JUN 91 Emissions - Underhood Label Replacement Information 89004 FEB 91 Special Tools - Equipment, and Service Manual 86027 DEC 90 Tools - Engine Stand and Adapter Information 90037 DEC 90 Tools - Instructions For New Ball Joint Tool ATRATB028 OCT 90 A/T - Engine Vacuum Testing 90028 SEP 90 Windows - Markings Under Certain Lighting Conditions SN900805 AUG 90 Cigarette Lighter - Switching Precautions SN900804 AUG 90 Driveshaft - Set Ring Guide SN900806 AUG 90 Radio - Noise/Interference Service Tip SN900705 JUL 90 Recycled R12 - Storage Tips SN900603 JUN 90 R12 Refrigerant - Recovery/Recycling Update SN900304 MAR 90 Water Pump - Coolant Weepage ATRATB9002006 FEB 90 A/T - Choosing the Right ATF 89037 NOV 89 Battery - Testing Equipment ATRATB8930 OCT 89 A/T - Math Part II ATRATB8927 SEP 89 A/T - Twenty Steps To Successful Repairs ATRATB8923 AUG 89 A/T - Math Formulas Part I MEMO0889 AUG 89 Body and Frame - Rustproofing 89022 JUL 89 A/T - Cooler Flushing Procedure 89008 FEB 89 Tools - Check Mainshaft End Play ATRATB8834 JUL 88 A/T - Sprag Rotation 82003 MAY 88 Engine - Oil Consumption Test 84007 APR 88 Doors - Door Lock Silencer Replacement ATRATB8772 DEC 87 A/T - Park, Reverse, or Neutral Clunk/Ratcheting Noise ATRATB8754 SEP 87 A/T - Front Bushing Wear ATRATB8748 AUG 87 A/T - Slipping or No-Shift/Metal Sealing Rings 87012 MAY 87 Windows - Front Windows Raise/Lower Slowly 87002 JAN 87 Cigarette Lighter - Identification 86018 SEP 86 Brakes - Semi-Metallic Brake Pads 86022 SEP 86 Windows - Binding Front Window Mechanism 86014 AUG 86 Seat Belts - Testing and Repair 86010 MAY 86 Seat Belts - Limited Warranty ATRATB8619 MAY 86 A/T - 3 & 4 Speed Rebuild Tip 046122085 DEC 85 Mirrors - Wind Noise From the Right or Left Mirror 006111585 NOV 85 Clutch - Screeching or Moaning Sound 09292085 SEP 85 Clutch - Parts List For Repair of Noise Problems 00992785 SEP 85 Cruise Control - Vehicle Gains Speed 08282385 AUG 85 Heating - Rear Window Defogger Kit 03061485 JUN 85 M/T - Ratcheting Noise In 5-Speed Transmission 85025 MAY 85 A/T - Judder/Harsh Shift 85014 APR 85 Mirrors - Rear View Mirror Base Kit 02041285 APR 85 Brakes - Rear Brake Noise 85007 MAR 85 Engine - Sudden Loss of Compression 01131585 MAR 85 Interior - Instrument Panel Squeak 84068 DEC 84 Door - Wind Whistle From Door Window Sill 84006 DEC 84 Windows - Power Window Does Not Work 84060 NOV 84 Seat Belts - Availability of Longer Driver's Seat Belt 84058 OCT 84 Tools - Low Pressure Gauge For A/T Available 60262684 JUN 84 Clutch - Parts List For Repair Of Noise Problems 039684 JUN 84 Clutch - Screeching or Moaning noise at Full Engagement 84032052184 MAY 84 Radio - Hissing Noise 70143084 APR 84 Heating - Hatchback Rear Window Defogger Kit 84021040284 APR 84 Interior - Wind Whistle From Rear Pillars 840060184 JAN 84 Electrical - Fuse Box Door Replacement 0111283 DEC 83 Ignition - Spark Plug Cleaning Procedure 0411283 DEC 83 Window - Regulator Noisy or Binding 83035 NOV 83 Interior - Discolored Upholstery 0341183 NOV 83 Interior - Stains On Front Seat-Back Cover 0271083 OCT 83 Instrument Panel - Bubbles 0291083 OCT 83 Window - Cracked Windshield 83026 SEP 83 Brakes - Master Cylinder Push Rod Adjustment 83024 AUG 83 Engine - Preliminary Diagnosis Before Carburetor Repairs 02582983 AUG 83 A/C - Keihin Compressor Extended Warranty 019783 JUL 83 Interior - Gap In Sunroof Molding 83013 JUN 83 Emission Control - Information Labels Available 62983 JUN 83 Radio - Hondaline Audio System Repair 83012 MAY 83 Tool - Crankshaft (Flywheel End) Seal Installation 83015 MAY 83 Tools - Power Steering Pressure Gauge Modification 007483 APR 83 A/T - Mainshaft Bushing Seizure 83006 APR 83 Body - Paint Code Update 83008 APR 83 Interior - Gap in Door Panel Covering 82038 DEC 82 Emissions - EGR Diagnosis 82034 NOV 82 Engine - Oil Leak Hitachi Distributor 82035 NOV 82 MIrrors - Outside Rear View Mirror Wind Whistle Noise > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > BULLETPROOF you said. BULLETPROOF is EXACTLY what I said. Comprehension problems here, dickweed??? I stand by what I said earlier. I've owned several GM's with the 3.8 and have had no problems with ANY of them. Owned a couple of 3.1's along the way with no problems, either. Now, I don't think GM would have sold MILLIONS of vechicles with these engines in them if they were the clunkers you say they were (and are), unless the millions of us are just not as bright as you are. Yeah that's probably the reason. > http://www.alldata.com/TSB/07/830708ir.html > > < Got a lot of horsepower, as well. > > Hmmmmmm ever seen a 4.0 litre Jeep inline 6 drag a Chevy blazer with the > 4.3? Why does the Jeep win? Why? Because the Blazer spun its tires out on takeoff??? That's the problem I had with my '93' S-10, with the 4.3. When I learned how to "takeoff" properly, I had no trouble with against the said Jeep, which, by the way, is an American nameplate, and thus in the unwritten rules of this GM group, is not allowed. You can only use foreign brands in comparrison when knocking GM products here. > < Put a supercharger on them, and they are downright FAST. > Put a supercharge on a Yugo and it gets faster. Who wants a fast turd?- Hide quoted text - Once again, you gotta get better reading comprehensive skills. My 98 GTP is realible, seats 5 confortably, looks great, handles well, runs FAST and gets 30 MPG on the highway! Did I mention that it is a 98 model,which would make it about 11 model years old??? BTW, I love my cars, and take them seriously. I am also not a violent person by nature, but if you were standing in front of me and called my car a turd, I would punch you in the face. Not that my car is a Yugo, mind you. > - Show quoted text - > > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > BULLETPROOF you said. BULLETPROOF is EXACTLY what I said. Comprehension problems here, dickweed??? I stand by what I said earlier. I've owned several GM's with the 3.8 and have had no problems with ANY of them. =========================== Can anyone disagree with your infallibility claim? Or are you GOD? > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, I'm just a regular person, as opposed to whatever you are. Just went out and checked my two 3.8 litre powerer Pontiacs just to make sure make I was not suffering from some kind of illusion, because we all know that if you said they were sh.t, that must be the case. Both started and ran well. I double checked to see how many miles I had on them. Triple-checked to see if maybe somehow I forgot and really did have major engine damage to one of them in the past.. Couldn't find an old bill on any engine repairs of any kind on these, or other GM cars I have owned in the past. Then, I checked on the internet to try to find out actual numbers as to how many 3.8 powered vechicles Gm has sold over the years Couldn't find any numbers, but saw that they have had this engine in production for over 30 years. Seems reasonable to me to think that the production numbers could total a million or more, several times over. It would be hard for me to beleive, based on my personal experiecnces and what I do know about the 3.8 that if it were the crap that you say it is, it would have NOT been discontinued many years age. But, what do I know. Unlike what you are suggesting, I am not "God" And we all know that it I were "God" I would be driving a Honda, anyway. > > > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Show quoted text - < Well, I'm just a regular person, as opposed to whatever you are. < Just went out and checked my two 3.8 litre powerer Pontiacs just to < make sure make I was not suffering from some kind of illusion, because < we all know that if you said they were sh.t, that must be the case. You know I have a friend who has 250,000 miles or so on his Yugo and LOVES IT! To him it is better than a Rolls Royce BY FAR! The problem you and a few others seem to have is that you seem to believe there should be only ONE brand of cars. The kind YOU like. The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems either. Nor have GM automatic transmissions always been great performers either. But you love them and nobody dare say they are anything less than the best cars EVER to hit the road. BY FAR! Who am I? Nobody really. Just a guy who has been around cars his entire life in one way or another. > The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM V-6's. > Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems either. The 3.8 had a problem, but was also listed as one of the top 10 engines of the 20th century. > Who am I? Nobody really. Finally, something I think everyone can agree on. >> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM V-6's. >> Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems either. > > The 3.8 had a problem, but was also listed as one of the top 10 engines of > the 20th century. Top 10 AMERICAN engines. >>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Top 10 AMERICAN engines. Wrong again. >>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wrong again. Oh let's see. Maseratti makes about 3 different engines. Start counting. Lamborghini has at least 2. Ferarri has about 3. How many is that so far? BMW makes about 4. Rolls Royce. Are we having fun yet? Mercedes has about 6. Audi has a couple. Let's consider ALL Japanese engines sh.t for the purpose of this little debate... let's forget ALL Ford and Chrysler engines ESPECIALLY that sh.t Hemi! And the 3.8 fits where? NUMERO UNO? That's not even getting to the older cars like the Duesenberg and Cord. I don't know who listed the 3.8 liter GM engines as one of the top 10, I think I can safely say whoever it is, is FULL OF sh.t!!!!!!!! Not to mention the engine has some stiff competition from some other GM engines like the Chevy small block V-8s'. I am sure I would never want to arm wrestle with you, you must have biceps the size of basketballs shoveling that much bullshit. The 3.8 doesn't even make it into the top 10 of AMERICAN engines of the 20th century. NOT EVEN CLOSE! You've got a whole bunch of motors in front of it. Packard - even FORD - the old flathead Ford. I'm not even scratching the surface here. Not top 10 in QUALITY... Maybe top 10 in units manufactured. Reliability? Try taking on the old Continental Read Seal 6. Good for 200,000 miles and many well maintained in fleets hit 500,000 or more. Favorite of cab companies. TOP 10 best engines in WORLD history for the 20th century. Do you realize how INSANE that claim is??????? At all? >>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Favorite of cab companies. TOP 10 best engines in WORLD history for the > 20th century. Do you realize how INSANE that claim is??????? At all? The award was a Ward. And you need some Prozac, big time. >>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> scratching the surface here. Not top 10 in QUALITY... Maybe top 10 in >> units manufactured. >> Reliability? Try taking on the old Continental Read Seal 6. Good for >> 200,000 miles and many well maintained in fleets hit 500,000 or more. >> Favorite of cab companies. TOP 10 best engines in WORLD history for the >> 20th century. Do you realize how INSANE that claim is??????? At all? > The award was a Ward. And you need some Prozac, big time. A "Ward?" A war what? A ward in the Looney bin? There are so MANY engines that rank better than the GM 3.8 that claiming it is in the top 10 of ALL engines built in the world in the 20th Century is insane. What criteria was used? Who ranked them? YOU? Where can we find this ranking? Fella it doesn't even hit the top 20 AMERICAN engines. GM has at least 4 engines that score better with anyone who knows engines, that's not getting to Ford, Chrysler, Hudson etc. The 3.8 isn't anywhere near as reliable is the old Chrysler slant 6. Packard has at least 4 engines that would have to rate above it. Cord, Duesenberg, Studebaker, and a few others creep in there. Each had more than one great engine. That's not even getting to any of the European manufacturers. >>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>>>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > others creep in there. Each had more than one great engine. That's not > even getting to any of the European manufacturers. Ward is the company who did the ratings, moron. And seriously, you need to calm down. What are you, 9? >>>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>>>>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Ward is the company who did the ratings, moron. And seriously, you need > to calm down. What are you, 9? Then WARD is FULL OF sh.t! BUT THEY DON'T!!! http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/07/wards-auto-releases-annual-10-best-engines-list/ Why is it that - THAT list does NOT list ANY Chevy engines???? And Ward did NOT do a 10 best engines of ALL TIME. There is a BULLSHIT listing in Wikipedia HOWEVER - the WARD list doesn't seem to support it. And taking a risk whoever said it - WARD OR NOT is an IDIOT! >And taking a risk whoever said it - WARD OR NOT is an IDIOT! Talking about the 3800 engine? Sweet engine. There was an article of "Top 10 Engines" or something like that. The GM 3800 was one, and I recall the Nissan 3.0 on the list too. Sweet engines. Thanks for mentioning this list. Might help somebody when they are considering their purchase. --Vic >>And taking a risk whoever said it - WARD OR NOT is an IDIOT! > Talking about the 3800 engine? 3.8 Liter GM V-6. > Sweet engine. That'ss a matter of opinion. > There was an article of "Top 10 Engines" or something like that. Very misleading. It's bullshit. " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message > Then WARD is FULL OF sh.t! BUT THEY DON'T!!! > > http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/07/wards-auto-releases-annual-10-best-engines-list/ > > Why is it that - THAT list does NOT list ANY Chevy engines???? And Ward > did NOT do a 10 best engines of ALL TIME. The list you reference is only for a given year. They also note: Displaced from last year's list are GM's turbocharged Ecotec I-4 They do not, however, say what the requirements are for "best". Is it cost? Power to weight ratio? Power to displacement? Reliability? None of the above? All of the above? All I know is that I've had three cars with the 3800 and all went 100k to 200k with nothing more than new sparkplugs. Previous years are listed here. Note the 20th Century listing does have the GM 3800 as well as the 1997 3800 Series II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines I'd say that is close to the 10 best of ALL TIME though. > " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message >> Then WARD is FULL OF sh.t! BUT THEY DON'T!!! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cost? Power to weight ratio? Power to displacement? Reliability? None > of the above? All of the above? Correct.Claiming the GM V-6 as one of the 10 "Best engines of the 20th Century" is delusional. >>>>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM >>>>>>>>> V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Why is it that - THAT list does NOT list ANY Chevy engines???? If you could read, you would notice that that is for 2007, moron. > And Ward did NOT do a 10 best engines of ALL TIME. No, but they did do a list of 20th century engines. > There is a BULLSHIT listing in Wikipedia HOWEVER - the WARD list doesn't > seem to support it. Yes it does. > And taking a risk whoever said it - WARD OR NOT is an IDIOT! Check out the link, and then shut your mouth, please? http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_best_engines_th/index.html >>>>>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the >>>>>>>>>> GM V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>> Ward is the company who did the ratings, moron. And seriously, you need >>> to calm down. What are you, 9? >> Then WARD is FULL OF sh.t! BUT THEY DON'T!!! >> >> http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/07/wards-auto-releases-annual-10-best-engines-list/ >> Why is it that - THAT list does NOT list ANY Chevy engines???? > If you could read, you would notice that that is for 2007, moron. Okay. >> And Ward did NOT do a 10 best engines of ALL TIME. > No, but they did do a list of 20th century engines. And IT is bullshit. I finally tracked it down. I think the list was written by a plumber. NOBODY who knows cars would claim the GM V-6 is in the top 10 of all 20th century engines. IT IS INSANE! > >>>>>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the > >>>>>>>>>> GM V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well. maybe it is one of the best engines in the 21st century?? Come join us,krp. GM still sells a lot of these engines. Hint: that means there must be BUYERS as well. Gotta be a reason. > >>>>>>>>>> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the > >>>>>>>>>> GM V-6's. Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Okay. > >> And Ward did NOT do a 10 best engines of ALL TIME. > > No, but they did do a list of 20th century engines. > And IT is bullshit. I finally tracked it down. I think the list was > written by a plumber. NOBODY who knows cars would claim the GM V-6 is in > the > top 10 of all 20th century engines. IT IS INSANE < Well. maybe it is one of the best engines in the 21st century?? Here's all I will grant you. It is definately NOT one of the worst engines. In the best possible light I can give it it is, as built by GM a rather lackluster powerplant with loads of potential. A gifted enginemaster can turn it into a good engine. But as GM builds it, is is a YAWNER. < GM still sells a lot of these engines. They sell a shitload of Twinkies. That doesn't make them "GOOD FOOD!" >> And IT is bullshit. I finally tracked it down. I think the list was >> written by a plumber. NOBODY who knows cars would claim the GM V-6 is in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > They sell a shitload of Twinkies. That doesn't make them "GOOD FOOD!" Weeelllll, lemme step into this manure storm.. Own a 1998 Monte Carlo Z34. It's got the 3800 Series II. I'll say this.. it is NOT a "yawner." I can say that, having owned mills such as these: 1967 VW Beetle 1600cc 1963 Buick LeSabre 410 Wildcat 1974 Fury (Police version) 360 2bbl 1971 Fury III 360 2bbl 1969 Dodge Super Bee 383 Magnum 4 bbl 1971 Chrysler 300 440 4bbl 1978 Mustang 2.3l inline 4 1978 Lincoln Versailles 351 Windsor 1984 Dodge Daytona 2.2l Turbo 1 modified 1985 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 4100cc 1985 Lincoln Towncar 5.0l FI 1972 Porsche 914 2.0l and that's just a random handful... I'll say this for the 3800 series II.. It ranks right up there with anything else I've driven. Not as much horsepower as the 383 Magnum, but more horsepower per cu. in., and certainly a better power to weight ratio. I've verified that the car will do well over 110 MPH, and when driven reasonably, gets about 25 to 28 MPG. It's reliable. It starts every morning, runs without a hiccup. In the four years I've owned the car, it has never even thrown a diagnostic code. I cannot say the same for my wife's Intrepid (3.3l, not that piece of sh.t 2.8), nor my step-daughters' Sable (whatever the hell Ford put in there)... Top 10? Who the hell knows. With all the engines and all the criteria out there, you can make a case for the piece of sh.t GM 4100 cc to be a top ten engine. Who cares? Look at it this way... During WW II, the German army designed and built the Tiger tank. It was bigger than our Sherman. It had a bigger gun, it had better armor. The only way a Sherman could kill a Tiger was to shoot it in the a.s. Granted, the Sherman was faster, could turn its turret faster, but in a gunfight, the Sherman was at a severe disadvantage. How did we win the tank war? The German Tiger was technically superior, but also more complicated more expensive to build, and severely difficult to maintain in the field. We won the war with a tank that was, on paper, less sophisticated, less well armed, and less well armored. So guess which tank hits nearly every one's top 10 list? Right. The Sherman. SignatureRay Sirois SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS http://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6080 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6023 > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > They sell a shitload of Twinkies. That doesn't make them "GOOD FOOD!"- Hide quoted text - Geez, you are such an idiot. If the Twinkies were such a BAD product, they would not have sold MILLIONS of them, either. They probably were not intended to be "good food", just a nice snack. Neither were the 3.8's supposed to compare against a 400,000 dollar car. No, they were just supposed to be able to compete against regular cars, such as the Honda you say you own. And they wont have to take a backseat to ANYBODY, when comparing apples to apples. > - Show quoted text - >>>> Ward is the company who did the ratings, moron. And seriously, you >>>> need to calm down. What are you, 9? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > written by a plumber. NOBODY who knows cars would claim the GM V-6 is in > the top 10 of all 20th century engines. IT IS INSANE! Yawn. I am getting very bored with you. Your use of CAPS ALL THE TIME also makes me think you are 9 years old, using Mommy's computer. I made a statement, you said I was wrong. I proved I was correct, end of discussion. It has truly been fun going back and forth with you, but like I said, my amusement level is pretty much gone. Now go get some jello from Mommy, and have a nap. >>>> Why is it that - THAT list does NOT list ANY Chevy engines???? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I said, my amusement level is pretty much gone. Now go get some jello > from Mommy, and have a nap. No you didn't prove it was correct, you just proved you got the bullshit from somebody else. I proved you WRONG! In SPADES by naming many of the really top engines of the 20th Century. > >> <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:43749fd7-a648-47a0-a26c-46e8feae72c9@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Top 10 AMERICAN engines. Millions were sold. Something must have been good about these engines. > >> The simple FACTS are that loads of people had problems with the GM > >> V-6's. > >> Perhaps most with the 2.8 but the 3.8 and 4.3 have not been gems > >> either. > > The 3.8 had a problem, but was also listed as one of the top 10 engines > > of > > the 20th century. > Top 10 AMERICAN engines. < Millions were sold. Something must have been good about these engines. You were claiming TO best!!!! Now it is just top 10 by number made. I see you are slowly coming to your senses. I think you finally realize just how STUPID your original claim was. It's beginning to dawn on you - AT LAST! The problem here is that GM crammed that dog into almost everything it made. Chevys, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and trucks. EVEN BOATS. Do we want to start a list of absolute sh.t that they made a bunch of? At least you are off claiming it is a GOOD engine, finally. > You know I have a friend who has 250,000 miles or so on his Yugo and > LOVES IT! To him it is better than a Rolls Royce BY FAR! The problem you and I can't speak for Yugos, but I have been driving my Hornet for well over 30 years now. No major repairs in that time, the engine and automatic trans have never needed anything but normal maintenance. (Oh, it's been through a few water pumps, alternators, and other similar-level minor repairs of course.) This car may well last longer than I will, time will tell. So at least this sample of one indicates that it is possible for a domestic U.S. vehicle to provide long, reliable service. > Who am I? Nobody really. Just a guy who has been around cars his entire > life in one way or another. A meaningless statement unless that life has been sufficently long. Unless you have previously mentioned it, we have no way of knowing if you are 18 or 80. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> You know I have a friend who has 250,000 miles or so on his Yugo and >> LOVES IT! To him it is better than a Rolls Royce BY FAR! The problem you >> and > I can't speak for Yugos, but I have been driving my Hornet for well > over 30 years now. No major repairs in that time, the engine and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > indicates that it is possible for a domestic U.S. vehicle to provide > long, reliable service. Well according to knight the engine in your Hudson (Twin H?) doesn't even rank as a good engine. I would disagree. That Hudson 6 was also an extremely good engine. Enough for some time to blow off V-8 Chevys in stock car racing. That Hudson was whipping the a.s of Chevys and Fords in NASCAR for almost 2 decades. They did pretty well in USAC too. >>> You know I have a friend who has 250,000 miles or so on his Yugo and >>> LOVES IT! To him it is better than a Rolls Royce BY FAR! The problem you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stock car racing. That Hudson was whipping the a.s of Chevys and Fords in > NASCAR for almost 2 decades. They did pretty well in USAC too. Once again, you pull fact's out of your rear. Never once have I claimed any engine is bad, I only mentioned an engine that was on the top 10 of the century list. >>>> You know I have a friend who has 250,000 miles or so on his Yugo >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> indicates that it is possible for a domestic U.S. vehicle to provide >>> long, reliable service. >> Well according to knight the engine in your Hudson (Twin H?) doesn't >> even rank as a good engine. I would disagree. That Hudson 6 was also an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any engine is bad, I only mentioned an engine that was on the top 10 of > the century list. But the Hudson isn't. Clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Where's your source on this mysterious, list of BEST ENGINES? > Well according to knight the engine in your Hudson (Twin H?) doesn't > even rank as a good engine. I would disagree. That Hudson 6 was also an Actually, mine is the later AMC Hornet with the Rambler/AMC/Jeep OHV six. (An engine used in various vehicles from 1964-2006, of course with numerous engineering updates along the way.) These are tough engines that give a long service life when properly maintained. Transmission is the Chrysler 3-speed TorqueFlite, another long-lived piece. > extremely good engine. Enough for some time to blow off V-8 Chevys in stock > car racing. That Hudson was whipping the a.s of Chevys and Fords in NASCAR > for almost 2 decades. They did pretty well in USAC too. Yes, Hudson certainly pushed the limits of what could be done with a flathead six! In the end, though, they could not keep pace with the crop of new small-block V8s that were becoming popular at that time. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Well according to knight the engine in your Hudson (Twin H?) doesn't >> even rank as a good engine. I would disagree. That Hudson 6 was also an > Actually, mine is the later AMC Hornet with the Rambler/AMC/Jeep OHV six. > (An engine used in various vehicles from 1964-2006, of course with > numerous > engineering updates along the way.) These are tough engines that give > a long service life when properly maintained. Transmission is the > Chrysler 3-speed TorqueFlite, another long-lived piece. That 7 main bearing engine was a workhorse too. The old Hudson Hornet was good. That, engine, by the way goes back to the 40's in the Nash. Check its history. I'd certainly rate it slightly above the GM 3.8 for durability. Lots of those old Nashes were used as cop cars and taxis. They ran forever. >> extremely good engine. Enough for some time to blow off V-8 Chevys in >> stock >> car racing. That Hudson was whipping the a.s of Chevys and Fords in >> NASCAR >> for almost 2 decades. They did pretty well in USAC too. > Yes, Hudson certainly pushed the limits of what could be done with a > flathead six! In the end, though, they could not keep pace with the > crop of new small-block V8s that were becoming popular at that time. They held on till the mid 50's. Not bad at all. Marshall Teague ran them for years. http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Hudson.htm http://hetclub.com/teague/marshall_teague.htm I rest my case. > Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my > Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the > car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. I'm sorry - I well remember those years and I find this statement to be completely absurd. Not that I can call you a liar, but I am 100% certain that there is much more to this story. And... I'll bet the sequel exposes more about the car owner than the car. > Mine was one of the BETTER ones. Now - on this statement, I'll offer a simple statement - Bullshit! > Water pumps went out with amazing regularity as did power steering units, > the electrical system was a nightmare. They lived up to the nickname "FIX > OR REPAIR DAILY!" We had something like 3500 of them. PURE sh.t! Then I > got a 72 Chevy Impala. JUST AS BAD!! Recently had pretty good luck with > Chrysler products. My neighbor traded his ailing pain in the a.s Silverado > on a Toyota. And my neighbor just bought another new Silverado because he has had nothing but the best of service from the ones he's owned over the years. > He's feeling much better now. And just why is he so much happier with the highest recall truck on the road? > Hell there were some people who LOVED their Yugos. They are the people who just LOVE their Toyotas and Hondas today, even though they are nothing better than the vehicles they so love to bash. > We've had folks here RAVE about the Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas they had. > Cars are cars and a brand can have some good and some bad. I know a guy > who had a Rolls Royce and had nothing but trouble with it for 2 years. > They gave him a new one. > The Vega and Pinto were two of the WORST cars ever built in America. Compared to what? In their day, they were both great values and problematic at the same time. The Vega suffered no more body rot issues than the Ford Maverick of the same era, every Chrylser product produced, and for certain - every Japanese car sold at the time. No - they weren't the worst cars ever built in America. They were in some respects, the best cars ever produced up to that time. They were a hell of a lot better than the Japanese imports of the same era. > By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Sadly, this is too true. > Same with Ford. Which is why BOTH are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Close, but not correct. More accurately, the reason that they are crap today is the same reason that they are having their financial problems. Make that problem the fact that accountants are making design decisions. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that there is much more to this story. And... I'll bet the sequel exposes > more about the car owner than the car. It was a FLEET! Ah sh.t this has gotten pointless. Ford is the BEST CAR in the world Even better than the Chevy! OKAY? >>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It was a FLEET! Ah sh.t this has gotten pointless. Ford is the BEST CAR > in the world Even better than the Chevy! OKAY? Ok - let's look at this... you state "On my Galaxie 500...", then you list a litany of issues (which are quite unique to you). Then you come back with "It was a FLEET!". Don't look now, but your knickers are showing... Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a litany of issues (which are quite unique to you). Then you come back > with "It was a FLEET!". Don't look now, but your knickers are showing... Your really ARE a twit, aren't you? Have trouble following a thread do ya? The part of it being a FLEET came at the beginning of the subject. The car assigned to ME - was MY CAR - I know that confuses you. I didn't own it, BUT it was assigned to ME and therefore MY CAR. Oh sh.t - I keep forgetting - this IS Usenet. >>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>>> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it, BUT it was assigned to ME and therefore MY CAR. Oh sh.t - I keep > forgetting - this IS Usenet. Yes - this is usenet - a place where the record of your words persists. It kills you when your own words make you look so foolish, doesn't it? Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.netd >>>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On >>>>>> my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes - this is usenet - a place where the record of your words persists. > It kills you when your own words make you look so foolish, doesn't it? AT least I know what a FLEET is. >>>>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On >>>>>>> my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > AT least I know what a FLEET is. In your case, it's an enema. >>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>>> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and >>>>> the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. >> Ok - let's look at this... you state "On my Galaxie 500...", then you list >> a litany of issues (which are quite unique to you). Then you come back [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it, BUT it was assigned to ME and therefore MY CAR. Oh sh.t - I keep >forgetting - this IS Usenet. Okay, fleet or not it was still the same car, right? So what, might one ask, does being part of a fleet have to do with it? Either way you listed it as YOUR galaxie (see above). There are a few points I'd like to agree with you on and have, but your consistency is somewhere below abysmal and your points have little merrit or substance. Keeping that in mind, it might be the ideal time for you to run for president... It seems you already meet the qualifications! ;) >>>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On >>>>>> my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>it, BUT it was assigned to ME and therefore MY CAR. Oh sh.t - I keep >>forgetting - this IS Usenet. > Okay, fleet or not it was still the same car, right? So what, might > one ask, does being part of a fleet have to do with it? NOTHING AT ALL! NOT A BLESSED THING! That is was one of about 3500 cars and almost ALL of them had significant problems, we can FORGET completely because your aunt Hazel had a Country Squire she drove for 200 million miles! > Either way you listed it as YOUR galaxie (see above). SURE I did. It was the car assigned to me for TWO YEARS. IT WAS sh.t! As were the 3500 other Fords our company had. > There are a few points I'd like to agree with you on and have, but your > consistency is somewhere > below abysmal and your points have little merrit or substance. Keeping > that in mind, it might be the ideal time for you to run for > president... It seems you already meet the qualifications! ;) Have you ever had a company car assigned to you? Did you ever call it MY CAR? >>>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>>> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it, BUT it was assigned to ME and therefore MY CAR. Oh sh.t - I keep > forgetting - this IS Usenet. I love how you put so many words in CAPS. You are like a teenager on Yahoo... LOL!1111!!!!!! > Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On > my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, > and the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of > the BETTER ones. Water pumps went out with amazing regularity as did > power steering units, the electrical system was a nightmare. This smacks of made up bullshit. My parents owned a 1969 Country Sedan (Galaxie Station Wagon) and a 1972 Country Squire (this one got the plastic wood grain). I was 16 when they got the 1969 and I drove crap out of it. It was almost indestructible. I say almost because I pulled out in front of a 1967 Galaxie (bad intersection, sun in my eyes) and got hit in the rear corner. We drove the car to the dealership to trade it in but it was in bad shape (frame bent). I grew up around people who owned Fords (small town, one Ford Dealer, One Chevy Dealer, one Chrysler dealer) and mostly everyone drove one of the big three cars. I never remember anyone having a door fall off a Ford, or a hood fly up much less "off." . There is no way you had all those things happen to one car, probably not even a fleet of cars. Ed >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On >> my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Ford, or a hood fly up much less "off." . There is no way you had all >those things happen to one car, probably not even a fleet of cars. Here's what I really want to know, Ed. Since auto groups are seeing these posts, I think it's a good question. What kind of automotive judgement should one expect from somebody who admits he owned, and apparently paid for a car whose hood flew off 6 times. caught fire 6 times, and doors fell off twice? Would you trust this person's judgement about cars? I certainly don't. This guy's got really bad car mojo. Just my opinion. --Vic >>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. >>> On [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I certainly don't. This guy's got really bad car mojo. > Just my opinion. I think he just made the whole thing up. The hoods on Galaxies were not attached any differently than the norm for the day (foreign or domestic). I could believe that the latch was improperly installed allowing the hood to unexpectedly fly up (and possibly off) one time. But after that, it is impossible to believe it happened again, unless the mechanic that reinstalled it was a complete idiot. So MAYBE the mechanic was a complete idiot and the hood flew up a second time. But four more times? He is either lying or incompetent. Take your pick. Likewise for the door. The hinges and door latches for a Galaxie were typical of the day (for call US and most imported cars). Maybe I could believe the factory did not properly tighten the bolds, but loose bolts would show up as a "loose" door long before the door would just fall off. And then the idea the car caught fire 6 times - once is usually enough to total a car. It is not bad mojo, it is bad honesty at work here. Ed >>>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. >>>> On [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >I think he just made the whole thing up. Maybe, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. More fun. Most of the guys spouting this kind of stuff are really clueless about cars. Like Honda Indy engines mean anything to Joe six-pack. That's why I always recommend to them they just get a new Corolla. It's probably the safest bet for them, or at least it was. Give them something to compare against a '68 Chevy or Ford in the Toyota group. Maybe I'll get one myself so I can bitch by comparing it to my ma's old '55 Belvidere flathead with the blown head gasket. Yeah, that's the ticket. --Vic > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:31:32 -0400, "C. E. White" > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > --Vic They have great dealers and mechanics in Cuba http://havanajournal.com/culture/entry/cuba_is_a_museum_of_antique_american_cars/ "Cuba’s Ministry of Interior reported in 2003 that 31,760 pre-1959 American passenger cars were registered, down sharply from the 37,680 vintage cars registered in 2001. The total of passengers cars was about 192,000, he said. About half of the old American vehicles on Cuba’s streets are from the 1950s, with Chevrolets more numerous than any other make. Another 25 percent are from the 1940s, with the remainder from the 1930s. " >They have great dealers and mechanics in Cuba > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >1950s, with Chevrolets more numerous than any other make. Another 25 >percent are from the 1940s, with the remainder from the 1930s. " Usually when you see a photo of a Cuban street scene there's a '57 Chevy in it somewhere. I think they have some good machinists and body guys there too. Don't know how they'd get the parts otherwise. I'd like to pop the hood on one and see a real 283. For all we know there's a hamster cage under the hood. --Vic >>They have great dealers and mechanics in Cuba >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'd like to pop the hood on one and see a real 283. > For all we know there's a hamster cage under the hood. Most of them are running on diesel engines taken out of Russian built cars. > >>They have great dealers and mechanics in Cuba > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Most of them are running on diesel engines taken out of Russian built cars. The cubans are showing the rest of us that we do not need to change cars every other year. Also that the quality of american made cars have steadily been declining since 1960. That is about the year when GM reached its climax and has been going down ever since. They have great dealers and mechanics in Cuba http://havanajournal.com/culture/entry/cuba_is_a_museum_of_antique_american_cars/ "Cuba’s Ministry of Interior reported in 2003 that 31,760 pre-1959 American passenger cars were registered, down sharply from the 37,680 vintage cars registered in 2001. The total of passengers cars was about 192,000, he said. About half of the old American vehicles on Cuba’s streets are from the 1950s, with Chevrolets more numerous than any other make. Another 25 percent are from the 1940s, with the remainder from the 1930s. " ============= Wrong subject and wrong guy to throw this at. First of all I have been to Cuba a bunch of times. Secondly I got married there a few years back. Thirdly MOST of those 50+ year old American cars no longer have American engines in them. Bad subject to try to debate with me. I've actually been there. > Maybe, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. More fun. > Most of the guys spouting this kind of stuff are really clueless about > cars. Like Honda Indy engines mean anything to Joe six-pack. Maybe not. But since you believe that Chevrolet is the BEST CAR IN THE WORLD - why aren't they using Chevy engines any more???? After all, they are MUCH better than that sh.t Japanese stuff, right? > I think he just made the whole thing up. The hoods on Galaxies were not > attached any differently than the norm for the day (foreign or domestic). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > caught fire 6 times - once is usually enough to total a car. It is not bad > mojo, it is bad honesty at work here. I suspect this guy is some backyard hack who boogers things up with bailing wire and snot, or he's just plain full of crap. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> I think he just made the whole thing up. The hoods on Galaxies were not >> attached any differently than the norm for the day (foreign or domestic). [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I suspect this guy is some backyard hack who boogers things up with > bailing wire and snot, or he's just plain full of crap. Suspect again. It was a FLEET car leased by the company out of Pennsauken, NJ and ALL repairs were done by the assigned Ford Dealership in each city we had branch offices. There were, as I have said now FIVE TIMES - about 3500 cars in the fleet. >>> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On >>> my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>Ford, or a hood fly up much less "off." . There is no way you had all >>those things happen to one car, probably not even a fleet of cars. > Here's what I really want to know, Ed. > Since auto groups are seeing these posts, I think it's a good > question. > What kind of automotive judgement should one expect from somebody who > admits he owned, and apparently paid for a car whose hood flew off 6 > times. caught fire 6 times, and doors fell off twice? Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. > Would you trust this person's judgement about cars? Less so than somebody who doesn't know what a "FLEET" is!!! > I certainly don't. This guy's got really bad car mojo. Just my opinion. Sorry in cars I bought I have had good luck. In 1968 I bought an AMX and sold it 18 months later for more than I paid for it. Raced it quite successfully against Chevys and Fords. Bought a 70 Javelin. Loved that car too. Those were cars I owned. Not FLEET CARS. Look up the word FLEET and see if you can understand the meaning. If the problem persists I can post the definition for you. Since then I have had several Chrysler products all of which were trouble free. The car I traded on the Honda was a Chrysler 300 C. Never had any mechanical problems. Didn't much like the radio. But aside from that the car ran perfectly. When I had my Town and Country I used to give my friend who had a Ford minivan a ride most weeks since his van always seemed to break. He finally bought a Dodge van. ----- Original Message ----- From: " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors WHAT'S A FLEET????? ....... > Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars > owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. That is not what you said. You said - "Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of the BETTER ones." You said "MY Galaxie 500" and "MINE was one of the BETTER ones. " So how many cars were in the fleet, and do you have comparison to Hondas from the same period? Were you in charge of the "fleet" or are you just making this crap up on the fly? I am guessing you are just exaggerating for effect. Ed >> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You said "MY Galaxie 500" and "MINE was one of the BETTER ones. " Look TWERP - I DID say from the start no less than 5 different times it was a FLEET CAR! And yes it was "MY CAR" because it was assigned to me. Since my job was extremely secure it was MY CAR! It was also sh.t! My ex wife bought a Mustang right after we divorced. I am still laughing my a.s off as it constantly BREAKS on her! Car is faster than hell. ZERO to the REPAIR SHOP in 7 seconds. You don't know what corporate FLEET LEASES are, do you? > job was extremely secure it was MY CAR! It was also sh.t! My ex wife bought > a Mustang right after we divorced. I am still laughing my a.s off as it > constantly BREAKS on her! Car is faster than hell. ZERO to the REPAIR SHOP > in 7 seconds. My wife wanted something in metal for her birthday that would go from 0 to 100 in 7 seconds. I bought her a nice new scale. I will be leaving the intensive car unit in a few days. My wife wanted something in metal for her birthday that would go from 0 to 100 in 7 seconds. I bought her a nice new scale. I will be leaving the intensive car unit in a few days. ===================================================== Gosi - that is the best thing you've posted since you came around here. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > job was extremely secure it was MY CAR! It was also sh.t! My ex wife > bought > a Mustang right after we divorced. I am still laughing my a.s off as it > constantly BREAKS on her! Car is faster than hell. ZERO to the REPAIR SHOP > in 7 seconds. < My wife wanted something in metal for her birthday that would go from < 0 to 100 in 7 seconds. < I bought her a nice new scale. SLOW SCALE!!!! < I will be leaving the intensive car unit in a few days. :-)))))) >>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You don't know what corporate FLEET LEASES are, do you? You are so full of sh.t... You're right back to where you started from. Now it's a fleet car that was assigned to you that had all of these problems. Problems that the rest of the population of these Galaxy's did not have. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > problems. Problems that the rest of the population of these Galaxy's did > not have. You really are a little a.shole aren't you Mike? Start reading at the beginning of a thread sometime. No dipshit almost all the other cars in the fleet had significant continuing problems. Despite Ford being a HUGE customer - we did NOT renew the fleet agreement with them. Please start reading a thread from the BEGINNING before you make claims like you have. >>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of >>> cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it was a FLEET CAR! And yes it was "MY CAR" because it was assigned > to me. Since my job was extremely secure it was MY CAR! So what are you are now trying to claim now? That you personally had many different Galaxies and each had a hood fly off or a door fall off, or that it caught on fire? You can call me a idiot, or a twerp, or whatever. However, I feel confident you are not being exactly honest, or you are not stating your position properly. I can believe in a fleet of thousands of Galaxies that a hood or two failed (probably because they were not closed properly - there was a recall against 1969 full size fords to modify the hood catch - it only applied to '69 models) or a door fall off because of rust, or incompetence by a dealership. And I certainly can believe there could have been multiple fires related to the electrical system. But no way will I believe that you personally had all those things happen to cars that could qualify as your car (whether you leased it, were assigned it, or got a new one every week for a year). > It was also sh.t! My ex wife bought a Mustang right after we > divorced. I am still laughing my a.s off as it constantly BREAKS on > her! Car is faster than hell. ZERO to the REPAIR SHOP in 7 seconds. What year Mustang? I've owned two, a 2001 that was very reliable, and a 2006 that my Son drives (it replaced the Saturn). He did manage to screw up something in the rear end (while wearing out 3 sets of rear tires in less than a year). But I'd say it has been a very good car, at least so far. Ed > You don't know what corporate FLEET LEASES are, do you? >>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > different Galaxies and each had a hood fly off or a door fall off, or > that it caught on fire? Are you RETARDED? Seriously, were you brain damaged at birth???? The company I worked for had ABOUT 3500 Ford Galaxies.GOT IT? Must I explain it further? Too complicated for you? I suggest that if you need a brain transfusion that you set one up with the "Fleet" company the OTHER Fleet that does enemas! What part of "FLEET" keeps sailing right over that point on top of your head? >>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Fleet that does enemas! What part of "FLEET" keeps sailing right over that >point on top of your head? Aside from the fact that you are resorting to juvenile name-calling to try to emphasize the fact that you still are not consistent, do you have a point to make here? What does the company you working for have 3,500 Ford Galaxies have to do with the fact that YOUR (see above) Galaxie had 6 fires, 6 hood fly-offs, 2 door fall offs, et'al? Btw, do they build a special car for the fleets that is guaranteed to fall apart every other mile? If so, that might explain Hertz, Avis, etc.... Attemping (poorly) to name call like a 6th grader will just further diminish your credibility. Right about now I believe it's slipping just into the negative range. >>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>that >>point on top of your head? > Aside from the fact that you are resorting to juvenile name-calling to > try to emphasize the fact that you still are not consistent, do you > have a point to make here? Shall I replay YOUR name calling??? < What does the company you working for have > 3,500 Ford Galaxies have to do with the fact that YOUR (see above) > Galaxie had 6 fires, 6 hood fly-offs, 2 door fall offs, et'al? Btw, > do they build a special car for the fleets that is guaranteed to fall > apart every other mile? If so, that might explain Hertz, Avis, etc.... Because almost all the cars in the FLEET had constant failures. And it wasn't just OUR fleet. At the end of the lease period, it was NOT renewed. The company looked to see if Chevy or Chrysler had anything better. They elected to go back to paying the people to drive their own cars. I had a problem free AMX and later Javelin for that time. Other folks had other cars. Some had Buicks, and even some Volkswaggen station waggons. I might have had one IF they had been available with Air Conditioners. > Attemping (poorly) to name call like a 6th grader will just further > diminish your credibility. Right about now I believe it's slipping > just into the negative range. >>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of >>>>> cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > company the OTHER Fleet that does enemas! What part of "FLEET" > keeps sailing right over that point on top of your head? The part where you said "On my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of the BETTER ones." You said MY Galaxie 500, not a fleet of 3500 Ford Galaxies. I doubt you had access to the actual fleet information, so again, I assume you are just exaggerating in an attempt to make some point that escapes me. You can't seriously expect that some made up failure rate for domestic cars built in the late 60's has any bearing on the quality of cars built today. Do you have any made up information for Hondas or Toyota from the late 60's for comparison? Sometime you should read what Toyota had to say about the cars they first tried to sell in this country. Even Toyota admits they were crap. Ed >>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > hood flew off 6 times, and the car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. > Mine was one of the BETTER ones." MY GOD - - - you are fukkkking DENSE! It was the car assigned to me for the term of the lease. 2 YEARS, it was MY CAR! Do you have EVEN A REMOTE idea what a FLEET IS? Even an infantile understanding? Should I call the car assigned to me FRED'S CAR? It was MY CAR. The one *I* drive you blithering JACKASS! >>>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of cars >>>>>>> owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Even an infantile understanding? Should I call the car assigned to me > FRED'S CAR? It was MY CAR. The one *I* drive you blithering JACKASS! I love the smell of bullshit in the morning. Some day this thread is gonna end. Regards, JR >>>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET >>>>>>> of cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > me FRED'S CAR? It was MY CAR. The one *I* drive you blithering > JACKASS Calling me names is not helping your case. So the one *you* drove had the hood fly off six times, the door fall off twice, etc. or did this supposedly happen to different cars in the fleet of 3500? I assume you mean the later, but you keep implying it happened to the one you drove. Now if you said something like "the hoods flew off of six different cars in the companies fleet that were like the car I drove" then maybe I could understand your claim. However you keep making statements that imply that six times the hood flew off the car you drove. I still believe you are just making things up, or exaggerating actual events in an attempt to justify your bashing of domestic cars. Here are a few simple question that maybe you can answer without calling me something: - Did the hood ever fly off a car you were personally driving? - Did the door ever fall off a car you were personally driving? - Did a car you were personally driving ever catch on fire? I am not asking if another car in the fleet ever had the hood fly off, or the door fall off, or catch on fire. I am asking if it ever happed to your one special car. The car assigned to you. Not a car assigned to someone else. Not a report of a rumor. Not an urban legend. Not some made up crap. But something you personally witnessed happening to the car you were assigned. Ed >Here are a few simple question that maybe you can answer without >calling me something: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >some made up crap. But something you personally witnessed happening to >the car you were assigned. He can't seem to do anything more than flail at the wind while telling people how stupid they are, when it seems that the entire focus is on this idiot. I can already answer the above questions for you. He said it was HIS car (later his FLEET car but still his) that had the hood fly off 6 times, the doors fall off twice, and the car catch fire 6 times. Now, as he has also stated that his is one of the better ones out of 3,500 that would tend to really destroy any further credibility. After all; that would mean... At least 21,000 occasions of the hoods of these cars flying up (or worse, since he had one of the better ones). At least 21,000 fires among the cars (or more, since yet again his is among the better ones..) At least 7,000 occasions where doors fell off of the vehicles... Now, if I worked with a company that had the financial pull to run 3,500 cars (which he still has yet to mention the name of this mystery company) and we were averaging over 2,042 failures per month among our 3,500 cars (21,000 hood failures, 21,000 fires, and 7000 doors falling off over 24 months) then you best believe that the contract would have been nullified within likely the first 3 months with cause and, potentially, punitive measures to compensate for downtime. Now, with some of the significant items (the fires) you are likely going to have those cars down for weeks at a time while they are repaired and parts found/furnished. That would run to about 1 month down (typical time frame turn around, though likely 3-4 months since they would be backlogged by the 3,500 burned cars). So out of 24 months they have only 18months usable per vehicle, mins the hood flyoffs (and associated roof, windshield and hood repairs, repainting, call it another 2-3 weeks each case) so now we are down to about 12 months of use out of a 2 year lease. Yep. I'm pretty sure we'd have seen the company long since cancel this contract and yes, even in the 60's, they had clauses in contracts for failure to perform and deliver. If he was working with a government, there are even more escape clauses built into given contracts, even back then, than civillian companies. To hear him tell it (and just using basic number crunching) out of 3,500 fleet cars only perhaps 100-150 of them could ever be on the road at any given time. The rest would have been piled up in overflow lots waiting for yet more repairs.... Those must have been some low-mileage lease turn-ins... Not even Fiat had a record that bad. Not Hyundai or even Yugo or Daewoo for that matter. Now, tell me at what point after 6 fires the car was still on the road? Tell me HOW doors completely fall off... TWICE! How does the same hood fail 6 times?!?! They don't. They simply do not. Especially not similiar failures on 3,500 of the same car. >>Here are a few simple question that maybe you can answer without >>calling me something: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > this idiot. I can already answer the above questions for you. He said > it was HIS car (later his FLEET car but still his) Tell me when your mother discovered your brain damage? >> He can't seem to do anything more than flail at the wind while telling >> people how stupid they are, > >Tell me when your mother discovered your brain damage? Thank you for making my point. :) >>> He can't seem to do anything more than flail at the wind while telling >>> people how stupid they are, >> >>Tell me when your mother discovered your brain damage? > > Thank you for making my point. :) No your mother did that when she kept dropping you on your head. >>>>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET of >>>>>>>> cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > just making things up, or exaggerating actual events in an attempt to > justify your bashing of domestic cars. Seriously. Are you retarded? I gave a list of the problems with MY CAR, and said that almost all of the rest of the fleet had serious recurring problems, and among them were water pump failures, power steering failures, brake failures, transmissioin failures and most commonly electrical fires and air conditioning failures. AT any given time ABOUT 30% of the fleet was in for repairs. > Here are a few simple question that maybe you can answer without calling > me something: > - Did the hood ever fly off a car you were personally driving? Yes. > - Did the door ever fall off a car you were personally driving? Yes, the driver's side rear and the passenger side front. > - Did a car you were personally driving ever catch on fire? Yes several times. Under the hood. > I am not asking if another car in the fleet ever had the hood fly off, or > the door fall off, or catch on fire. I am asking if it ever happed to your > one special car. The car assigned to you. Not a car assigned to someone > else. Not a report of a rumor. Not an urban legend. Not some made up crap. > But something you personally witnessed happening to the car you were > assigned. But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in New York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and the hood slid off. Seems somebody neglected to put in a few bolts. At the end of the lease period it was not renewed and the fleet manager was terminated. The company went back to compensating employees for using their own cars and were millions ahead. > But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in New >York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and the hood slid >off. Hey, later I'll tell you about time me and my Chevy were wrestling and he got me in a hammerlock. You'll like the story. But in the meantime, tell some more of your Ford stories. Got any good wresting or "Fishing With my Ford" stuff? --Vic >> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in >> New [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hey, later I'll tell you about time me and my Chevy were wrestling and > he got me in a hammerlock. Well, wish I were there, that's one time I would have been rooting for the Chevy to win/ > But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in New >York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and the hood slid >off. Seems somebody neglected to put in a few bolts. It takes a lot more than 'a few bolts' for something like this to happen. In fact, it would take a team of special effects guys from Hollywood to pull it off. Nope, not any more believable than anything else you have yet spewed in here. >> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in >> New >>York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and the hood slid >>off. Seems somebody neglected to put in a few bolts. > It takes a lot more than 'a few bolts' for something like this to > happen. Really? How is the front clip held on in a 65 Ford Galaxie? >>> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district >>> managers in New [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Really? How is the front clip held on in a 65 Ford Galaxie? The inner fenders / engine compartment walls are connected directly to the firewall. The radiator support is bolted to the main chassis rails at the front. The front bumper is bolted directly to the chassis at the front. The fenders are bolted to the firewall and inner fenders at multiple locations. The hoof hinges are bolted through the fenders into the inner fenders. The hood latch is bolter to the radiator support. I order for the "whole front end to slide off" you would have to detach the inner fenders at the firewall, and unbolt the radiator support form the chassis, and probably remove the front bumper, or at least somehow make it detach at the same time. Then the whole mass would have to magically jump over the front suspension while the electrical and hose connections detached. Maybe they could do this in the movies, but it did not happen in real life. If enough bolts had been left out to allow this to happen, the front end would have been jumping all over the place and the car would have been undrivable. Ed >>>> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in >>>> New [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > firewall. The radiator support is bolted to the main chassis rails at the > front. Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD? >Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD? Had a Galaxy 500XL that had the hood held down by elastic bra straps. I had taken a pass on the "Hood Latch" option. When that Ford got to backfiring through the carb the hood would open and close, a few inches, and to somebody looking from the front the white bra straps would show, appearing to be little teeth inside a chattering mouth. This had the effect of personifying the car, so I called her Tina. When I drove her from Chicago to Hollywood, I had 31 hoods fly off. Of course I was headed to Hollywood to get a supply of those special strong Jane Russell wired bras that Howard Hughes had designed, so that was no big surprise. The Jane Russell bras were nowhere to be found, even in the old MGM costume storage rooms. I was told later that Stephen King saw my Galaxy talking and it was the inspiration for his book "Christine," which also became a movie. Since the book was based on real life, he made Christine a Plymouth Fury to avoid paying royalties to me and the Ford Motor Company. I know this all sounds a bit odd, but there it is. I junked Tina in 1972 after the engine swam away at Chicago's Rainbow Beach. I was going back to the car for some suntan lotion and happened to see the engine sneaking away. When it saw me it broke into a sprint and ran down to the water to escape. It was a fast engine and I couldn't catch it. It left doing a backstroke, and looked to be headed for Escanaba, Michigan. It was my fault. The hood had flown off on the way to the beach, and I had forgotten to handcuff the engine before I walked to the sand and set up my beach blanket.. So I don't blame the engine. That damn car was sweet except for 863 hoods that flew off and the 902 times it caught fire. Loved that car. Got it used, as it was a FLEET car. Your turn. --Vic > > > > >Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD? > > > Had a Galaxy 500XL that had the hood held down by elastic bra straps. Could you open it with one hand? SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. >>>>> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers in >>>>> New [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD? Not likely, however the hood also has latches to the front clip as well as safety catches and, along with the mounts in the back would be one more thing that would have to fail for the clip to slide off, up and over the suspension, etc. Face it, epic fail here...and not on the point of the car. >>>>>> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Not likely, however the hood also has latches to the front clip SUPPOSED TO GUY SUPPOSED TO! >>>>>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET >>>>>>>>> of cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > in New York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and > the hood slid off. Seems somebody neglected to put in a few bolts. This is X-files level stuff now. This could not have happned as claimed without deliberate, very clever, major revisions to the front end of the car. It is very common for people to "enhance" stories in an effort to make a point. You've gone way past that. Your claims wouldn't even qualify as good science fiction. Ed > At the end of the lease period it was not renewed and the fleet > manager was terminated. The company went back to compensating > employees for using their own cars and were millions ahead. >This is X-files level stuff now. This could not have happned as >claimed without deliberate, very clever, major revisions to the front [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a point. You've gone way past that. Your claims wouldn't even qualify >as good science fiction. Okay, let us give him the benefit of the doubt... What kind of explosives truck did the man rear-end to cause the front end to fall off or did he hit a 70's Pinto hatchback? >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >> Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is no way you had all those things happen to one car, probably not even a > fleet of cars. Too bad it is true. >Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the >car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of the BETTER ones. >Water pumps went out with amazing regularity as did power steering units, >the electrical system was a nightmare. Call it common sense but I'm going to have to sit back and call BS on this one. If you had doors fall off, nevermind twice, you have a serious problem. If the hood flew off once, that's a problem. If the repair is so bad it does it another 5, that's even worse. lastly, if the car started on fire 6 times on the freeway? Come on now. That car would have been lemon-lawed and sold for scrap after the first incident or two. Either that or you have the worlds most incompetent mechanics trying to piece it back together. Either way, that just reads as highly exaggerated if not made up entirely. In iether case, a 38-48 year old vehicle is hardly representative of any company from any country currently made so that's a pretty pointless argument. >>Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this one. If you had doors fall off, nevermind twice, you have a > serious problem. What part of the word "FLEET" can your brain just NOT process????? We had something like 3500 of the Fords. WHY is it you can't seen to get that? > What part of the word "FLEET" can your brain just NOT process????? We had > something like 3500 of the Fords. WHY is it you can't seen to get that? Maybe because that's not what you said. Since being called on it, you've squirmed and put forward more than one inconsistent twist to your story. Spin krp, spin. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> What part of the word "FLEET" can your brain just NOT process????? We had >> something like 3500 of the Fords. WHY is it you can't seen to get that? > > Maybe because that's not what you said. Since being called on it, you've > squirmed and put forward more than one inconsistent twist to your story. > Spin krp, spin. It IS exactly what I said in my first post on this thread and now 6 TIMES since. >>>Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >What part of the word "FLEET" can your brain just NOT process????? We had >something like 3500 of the Fords. WHY is it you can't seen to get that? Where was FLeet in that original part where it was "ON MY GALAXIE 500!!!" Hmm.. I have a brain. I dont' recall ever reading until now that you had 3500 Fords in your fleet. Which fleet, EXACTLY, was this and what was your position over that fleet? >>>>Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my >>>>Galaxie 500, the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that you had 3500 Fords in your fleet. Which fleet, EXACTLY, was this > and what was your position over that fleet? How long have you has a computer? How long on Usenet? Do you ever start at the beginning of a THREAD? Or do you always jump in the middle or end before you know what came before????? Are you 8 years old? Do you need somebody to hold your little hand? It was MY Galaxie 500. It is the car that was assigned to ME for 2 hellish years. I had a 1951 Henry-J - not considered a great car by anyone - but I had less trouble with it in my 4 years in the Air Force than I had in ANY given month with the Ford. Between the two cars I'd take the Henry-J any day of the week. Not to mention my AMX or Javelin. And people who had the company lease cars called them their cars. I don't know what YOU would call them. But NORMAL PEOPLE called them THEIR CARS because they were assigned to them. Now you can be a smart a.s if that turns you on. Pardon me if I start thinking it is childish. >> Where was FLeet in that original part where it was "ON MY GALAXIE >> 500!!!" Hmm.. I have a brain. I dont' recall ever reading until now [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >hold your little hand? It was MY Galaxie 500. It is the car that was >assigned to ME for 2 hellish years. Computer? Since the early 70's. Usenet? About fifteen years, give or take. Yes, I was at the beginning of the thread. 8 years old, yes, but there is a 3 in front of that. No, you still can't seem to keep your story straight. I still stand that if this one car had that many problems it was long ago thrown to the lemon laws and that you are still absolutely full of crap. At this point you are nothing more or less than an inconsistent troll. There is virtually nothing you can do right now to save anything resembling credibility. After all, mine isn't the credibility in question. Dwell on that with the nice cold shiver of reality creeping up your spine. >>> Where was FLeet in that original part where it was "ON MY GALAXIE >>> 500!!!" Hmm.. I have a brain. I dont' recall ever reading until now [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > there is a 3 in front of that. No, you still can't seem to keep your > story straight. You OBVIOUSLY did NOT read my first post in this thread referring to the Fords. Do you need me to REPLAY it for you? I definately mentione dit was a company car. < I still stand that if this one car had that many > problems it was long ago thrown to the lemon laws and that you are > still absolutely full of crap. At this point you are nothing more or > less than an inconsistent troll. There is virtually nothing you can > do right now to save anything resembling credibility. After all, mine > isn't the credibility in question. Dwell on that with the nice cold > shiver of reality creeping up your spine. You STILL have a unique inability to understand things. This was one of about 3500 company LEASE cars in a "FLEET!" A FLEET! Almost all of which had similar problems. As I said on almost any given day almost 30% of our FLEET (there's that word you don't understand again) was in the shop. (DEALERSHIPS). I don't know if you are stupid or just a smart assed prick. Irritate me some more and I'll retrieve the first post I made on this subject. You can TRY the Usenet SPIN game. But eventually I always win those. Here have some more rope. On and DIPSHIT ......... let me be the FIRST to break the news to you. There were NO "LEMON LAWS" in 1965! My credibility? I have one question for you, HOW do you get your head THAT FAR up your a.s? How long did it take you? How bad was the pain going in? >The difference between a Chevy and any other car in quality is >infinitesimal. I've had fleet Chevies, and sometimes Fords, at work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >top half of the list. > ?????????? Why do you hate America? ?????????????? "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA" CEO General Motors. This was said more than 60 years ago and this thinking hasn't changed. I worked with a Jewish woman who liked to tell ethnic jokes to the ethnic (Polish jokes to a Pole, etc). This got tired real fast so I told her a Jew joke. She wailed "Why does everyone hate the Jews". Are you two related? Why are you so defensive? What is there to defend? Your 'American' car is global, meaning that parts that used to made in America now come from around the world and the subassemblies are merely assembled here - most of the time. Some times the whole car comes here and the name tag is changed to read GM, Ford, Chrysler and they add a bit of trim. The bullshit that happens in corporate America boardrooms is indefensable. These are the high paid people who are jerking your chain. Spend a nickel - spend a dime. Hmmm, lets just spend a nickel. You need to look into who owns or controls the firms and publications like JD Power, Car and Driver and so on. It might give you a new perspective on who's slinging the bullshit for who and who's getting paid for it by who. Follow the money. P > "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA" CEO General > Motors. This was said more than 60 years ago and this thinking hasn't > changed. You should do a little more research. For one - you should be able to cite who you quote, and not fall back on "CEO General Motors", which makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about. For another - you should consider the context of the quote. > The bullshit that happens > in corporate America boardrooms is indefensable. These are the high > paid people who are jerking your chain. Spend a nickel - spend a > dime. Hmmm, lets just spend a nickel. In America??? Perhaps you should look a little closer to home. This is indeed a real problem, but this is far - very far from and American problem. > You need to look into who owns or controls the firms and publications > like JD Power, Car and Driver and so on. It might give you a new > perspective on who's slinging the bullshit for who and who's getting > paid for it by who. Follow the money. Well - put your money where your mouth is. Enlighten everyone. Tell us who owns these companies. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA" CEO General >> Motors. This was said more than 60 years ago and this thinking hasn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it clear that you don't know what you're talking about. For another - you > should consider the context of the quote. Right it was Mr. HONDA who said that! CHEVY RULES!!!! Which is, of course, WHY all the Indy cars use Chevy engines and NOT Honda engines..... (Did I just get that backwards?) > >> "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA" CEO General > >> Motors. This was said more than 60 years ago and this thinking hasn't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > (Did I just get that backwards?) Even when they used Chevy engines, they didn't use Chevy engines. Ilmor. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >> >> "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA" CEO General >> >> Motors. This was said more than 60 years ago and this thinking hasn't [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Even when they used Chevy engines, they didn't use Chevy engines. But isn't the reason ALL Indy cars use Chevy engines is because they are so GOOD???? >> >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet >> >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER > buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! You know, you're right. The top rated Chevy Malibu and Impala are junk, as is the new Camaro. <sarcasm> You are a Moron. >>> >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet >>> >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> miles and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. >> NEVER buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! > You know, you're right. The top rated Chevy Malibu and Impala are junk, > as is the new Camaro. <sarcasm> You are a Moron. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Your wit and insight are greatly appreciated. Top rated by WHO? >>>> >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet >>>> >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Thank you for your valuable opinion. Your wit and insight are greatly > appreciated. Top rated by WHO? The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and Driver's" "10 best cars for 2008", along with the Cadillac CTS and Chevy Corvette. The Malibu was also chosen by Kelley Blue Book as the "Best redesigned vehicle for 2008". Also, last year, the Chevy Silverado and the Saturn Aura won the "North American Car of the Year" award. The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid also won the 2008 "Green Car of the Year" award. As for the Impala, it won the 2008 "AutoPacific Motorist Choice Award", and is built at the #1 rated Auto plant in North America, in Oshawa Ontario. > The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda > Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and > Driver's" "10 best cars for 2008", along with the Cadillac CTS and Chevy > Corvette. The Malibu was also chosen by Kelley Blue Book as the "Best > redesigned vehicle for 2008". And yet when you read Consumer's Reports there are all those pesky black dots and the conclusion that repairs are "substantially higher than average" and Honda rates "substantially better than average." I tend NOT to listen to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as CAR OF THE YEAR! " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message > I tend NOT to listen to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as CAR > OF THE YEAR! But maybe it was at the time. No magazine tests rear end crashes to see if the gas tank explodes. But value and economy were better than most of the day. > " krp" <krp21@verizon.net> wrote in message >> I tend NOT to listen to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as >> CAR OF THE YEAR! > > But maybe it was at the time. You HAVE to be kidding!! They also rated the Chevy Vega high. The ONLY car to hit the road in America that was worse was the YUGO! >> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda >> Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > average" and Honda rates "substantially better than average." I tend NOT > to listen to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as CAR OF THE YEAR! Ah, you're one of the morons who buys something based on what "Consumer's Reports" say. My work with you is done. >>> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda >>> Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ah, you're one of the morons who buys something based on what "Consumer's > Reports" say. My work with you is done. No, CR didn't get me to buy the Honda. Knowing cars did. How many of the INDY cars are using Chevy or Ford powerplants today? You can check the frequency of repair info, such as the Powers reports, or speak to mechanics. You can also check with the auto parts people. The top 3 Japanese companies do well, the others not so well. Mitsubishi, for example, turned into pure crap a few years ago. The Korean cars are making huge strides. By and large the American made cars are crap. Not that we can't build good cars. It is that we don't want to. It's a deliberate choice at GM and Ford to build "sh.t!" They know what they need to do to be competitive the problem is that the Harvard MBA who run things refuse to do them. They really DON'T know why wheels must stay on cars, they are THAT stupid. Want to know why our economy is in the crapper? Look at how many of these companies that are tanking were run by HARVARD MBA's. I have said for the past 2 decades; "If you want to take a great company and put it into bankruptcy within a year, put a Harvard MBA in charge!" Their only theme is make sh.t real fast and cheap! What amazes me is these clowns take over running a company, ruin it, and leave with a $90 MILLION golden parachute. Go figure. I held of buying a foreign car as long as I could. Finally I had to give in. The competitors from the US didn't get near the gas mileage of my Honda (CR-V) costs 30% more and were CRAP! The Ford BROKE on my test drive. BROKE.. Had to get TOWED back to the store. Chevy was cramped, noisy as hell. The Jeep liberty, about as close as Chrysler comes to a comparable vehicle pinched my a.s with the narrow seats. (Overly wide center console). I suppose it's fine if you weight 120 pounds. I don't. So what do we do? The problem I also see is that we allowed GM - Ford etc to get too big and engage in anti-competitive BS that put the independents out of business. (See Tucker) Between bad management and the two big companies being at war with innovation and any independent that started to become a threat - what we wound up with was a market ripe for the Japanese to rape. Is it because the Japanese can build better cars? Our autoworkers are the best in the world. But they are made to make crap! >>>> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking >>>> the Honda Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > No, CR didn't get me to buy the Honda. Knowing cars did. How many > of the INDY cars are using Chevy or Ford powerplants today? Since 2006 the only Ihdy engine has been a Honda V-8. This has absolutely nothing to do with production vehicles. The Indy series is a spec series. Everybody uses chassis from the same company as well. Does that imply that all vehicle manufaturers make crap cars since they don't supply Indy car chassis? > You can check the frequency of repair info, such as the Powers > reports, or speak to mechanics. You can also check with the auto > parts people. The top 3 Japanese companies do well, the others not > so well. Mitsubishi, for example, turned into pure crap a few years > ago. The Korean cars are making huge strides. By and large the > American made cars are crap. If you look at the JD Power rankings, almost all current vehciles are very reliable (both initially and long term). Consumer Reports recently revised the numbers used to determine the little dots to emphasize what are actually very small differences in reliability. > Not that we can't build good cars. It is that we don't want to. It's > a deliberate choice at GM and Ford to build "sh.t!" They know what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > economy is in the crapper? Look at how many of these companies that > are tanking were run by HARVARD MBA's. I currently own four vehicles - 2006 Nissan Frontier, 2006 Mustang Coupe (Sons car), 2007 Ford Fusion, 2008 (Mazda 3). My Sister just had her 2001 Ford Escape totaled in an accident (it wasn't really that badly damaged, but they offered her enough for the car she decided to buy a new car) and bought a new RAV4. My other sister just replaced her 1997 Civic with a 2008 RAV4. My SO has a 2007 RAV4. My Mother has a 2005 Ford Freestyle and a 1999 Ford Ranger. In 7.5 years of driving, the Escape needed one coolant level sensor and a brake booster. At the time it was wrecked, it was in very good shape and still comfortable. In 10 years of driving, the Civic needed two mufflers and plug wires. However, it was a horrible car to drive at the end. Both me and my other Sister (the Escape owner) agreed it was a horrible car. My Fusion has about 35k miles and has never been back to the dealer. The Frontier has been recalled three times, the rear jump seats won't stay up, and there is a known problem with the evaporative emission control system that occasionally turns on the check engine light. My Mother's Freestyle has never been back to the dealer. The Ranger has need one IAC replaced and has had no other repairs in almost 10 years (the paint is looking weak though). The Mustang had to have something done to the rear differential (warranty), however if you knew my son, you would be surprised that is all that has happened - he has bought three sets of rear tires for the car so far. My SO's RAV4 has been very reliable, but does have some faults (excessive wind noise and a cruise control that sometimes acts up). The other two RAV4 are practically brand new but seem perfect. The Mazda 3 is almost a year old, but has fewer than 6k miles. It has never needed any repairs. I have not driven in but once. It seems nice enough and my Son claims it has more room for the driver than the 2004 Accord he used to drive. I really like my Fusion, it is quiet with a decent ride and good power. The around town fuel mileage is not as good as I would like, but then I got AWD and a V-6, so I am not too surprised it is not better (I average around 23 in mostly urban driving). The Frontier has been mostly reliable. As a truck it is not as capable as I would have liked. Despite being significantly larger, it will not haul any more weight it he bed than the 1999 Ranger. The passenger compartment is also cramped for a truck of this size. The Ranger is much smaller, but actually seems to have more driver room, or at least things are better laid out. I guess my point is - I have personal knowledge of a lot of different vehicles. None of them have been unreliable. I rate the Civic as a horrible car, but it was reliable. Of the vehicles in my list, if I was going to go on a trip, I'd want to drive either the Fusion or the Freestyle. I actually prefer the Fusion, but if there were more than 3 people, the larger Freestyle would be a better choice. I'll be interested in seeing how my younger sister makes out with the RAV4. She had an excellent experience with the Escape, so it will be interesting to see if the RAV4 does as well. She is meticulous about having her car serviced at the dealer. My other Sister and my SO are not so good at keeping up with routine maintenance. I try to keep the oil changed for in their cars, but I only have so much time for other things. > I have said for the past 2 decades; "If you want to take a great > company and put it into bankruptcy within a year, put a Harvard MBA [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > narrow seats. (Overly wide center console). I suppose it's fine if > you weight 120 pounds. I don't. I liked the older CR-Vs, however my two Sisters and my SO all decided the Toyota RAV4 was a btter vehicle that the current CR-V. I rode in a firend's 2008 CR-V earlier this year on a beach trip. The vehicle was a little cramped and suffered from a lot of wind/road noise. I think it was not as good as my Sister's old Escape or her current RAV4. And the prices are excessive. My friend paid much more for the CR-V than any of the three RAV-4s I am familar with. What Ford are you comparing to a CR-V? There is no way an Escape would cost 30% more. So what "broke" on the Ford. My recent experience with Fords has been excellent. As I mentioned above after almost 2 years and 35k miles by Fusion has been perfect. Not one problem. My Sisters 7.5 year old Escape never had a significant problem until it was wrecked. > So what do we do? The problem I also see is that we allowed GM - > Ford etc to get too big and engage in anti-competitive BS that put [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the Japanese can build better cars? Our autoworkers are the best in > the world. But they are made to make crap! I don't think American cars are crap. Of the cars I am intimately familiar with, I rate my Fusion as the best. Second best would be the Freestyle. In fact here is how I would rate the most recent vehicles I am close to (overall - including reliability, best to worst): 2007 Fusion 2005 Freestyle 2008 Mazda 3 2001 Escape 2008 RAV4 2008 RAV4 2007 RAV4 2006 Mustang 1999 Ranger 2006 Frontier 1997 Civic Have I owned "bad" American cars? Yes, I had a 2003 Saturn Vue that had a poorly designed transmission. The 1981 Plymouth I owed was the second most unreliable car I have ever owned. I had a 1978 Fairmont that was poorly assembled (but very reliable). Both family members and myself have owned unreliable foreign cars as well. The worst car I ever owned was an mid-80 Toyota Cressida. An early 80's Mazda drove me crazy with cooling system problems. My sister's late 70's Accord was nothing to write home about. Her 1997 Civic, while reliable, was a horrible car (at least at the end). I loved my Datsun Z car, but it was in the shop more than any Ford I have ever owned. My Father owned a Ford Courier that was a horrid thing to drive. Each of my Sisters owned a VW - never again! I think you are way off when you call American cars crap. Ed > Have I owned "bad" American cars? Yes, I had a 2003 Saturn Vue that > had a poorly designed transmission. Did you have the CV tranny in the four-cylinder? > he 1981 Plymouth I owed was the > second most unreliable car I have ever owned. I had a 1978 Fairmont > that was poorly assembled (but very reliable). Both family members and > myself have owned unreliable foreign cars as well. The worst car I > ever owned was an mid-80 Toyota Cressida. I remember almost buying one of those. Never see them around. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>>>> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the >>>>> Honda Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > all vehicle manufaturers make crap cars since they don't supply Indy car > chassis? Why don't they use Ford engines??? >> You can check the frequency of repair info, such as the Powers reports, >> or speak to mechanics. You can also check with the auto parts people. The >> top 3 Japanese companies do well, the others not so well. Mitsubishi, for >> example, turned into pure crap a few years ago. The Korean cars are >> making huge strides. By and large the American made cars are crap. > If you look at the JD Power rankings, almost all current vehciles are very > reliable (both initially and long term). Consumer Reports recently revised > the numbers used to determine the little dots to emphasize what are > actually very small differences in reliability. Sorry last book I saw showed almost the whole Chevrolet line as worse than average and Honda much better than average. >> Not that we can't build good cars. It is that we don't want to. It's a >> deliberate choice at GM and Ford to build "sh.t!" They know what they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> crapper? Look at how many of these companies that are tanking were run by >> HARVARD MBA's. > I currently own four vehicles - 2006 Nissan Frontier, 2006 Mustang Coupe > (Sons car), 2007 Ford Fusion, 2008 (Mazda 3). My Sister just had her 2001 [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > routine maintenance. I try to keep the oil changed for in their cars, but > I only have so much time for other things. I still like my Honda. >> I have said for the past 2 decades; "If you want to take a great >> company and put it into bankruptcy within a year, put a Harvard MBA in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> comparable vehicle pinched my a.s with the narrow seats. (Overly wide >> center console). I suppose it's fine if you weight 120 pounds. I don't. > I liked the older CR-Vs, however my two Sisters and my SO all decided the > Toyota RAV4 was a btter vehicle that the current CR-V. I rode in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > problem. My Sisters 7.5 year old Escape never had a significant problem > until it was wrecked. What BROKE was the transmission. CLUNK rattle rattle stop. >> So what do we do? The problem I also see is that we allowed GM - Ford >> etc to get too big and engage in anti-competitive BS that put the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Our autoworkers are the best in the world. But they are made to make >> crap! > I don't think American cars are crap. Of the cars I am intimately familiar > with, I rate my Fusion as the best. Second best would be the Freestyle. In > fact here is how I would rate the most recent vehicles I am close to > (overall - including reliability, best to worst): I do think the American cars are crap. > > The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda > > Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and Honda rates "substantially better than average." I tend NOT to listen > to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as CAR OF THE YEAR! I tend to NEVER listen to the likes of GR or Edmunds. My guess is that you tend to not listen to them when, on RARE occasions, they give a good review on an American nameplate. > > The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the Honda > > Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and Honda rates "substantially better than average." I tend NOT to listen > to a magazine that once rated the Ford Pinto as CAR OF THE YEAR! I tend to NEVER listen to the likes of GR or Edmunds. My guess is that you tend to not listen to them when, on RARE occasions, they give a good review on an American nameplate. ============== Wrong. I bought a Chrysler Town and Country and that had GREAT reviews. But I didn't but it because of CR, it was because everyone I know around cars said it was the best minivan going. I put over 200,000 miles on it. It was in great shape when I traded it. >> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the >> Honda Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > average." I tend NOT to listen to a magazine that once rated the > Ford Pinto as CAR OF THE YEAR! I don't recall any magazine naming the Pinto as Car of the Year (The Vega was the Motor Trend Car of the Year). On the other hand, as the satisfied owner of a Pinto, I think your prejudice is showing. Did you ever own one? Do you recall what Honda was selling in the US at the same time the Pinto was introduced (1970)? I do - it was CRAP. And unsafe crap at that. My Sister replaced her 1973 Pinto with a 1979 Honda Accord. The Accord was a nicer car than a 1979 Pinto, which by then was an old end of life design, but when Pintos were originally introduced there was nothing from Honda that I would have considered (did you ever drive an original Civic - I did). In fact as far as I was concerned there was only one Japanese car sold in the US in the early 70's worth considering - the Datsun 510. Toyotas were slow, cramped, noisy, and rusted away in just a couple of years. They were horrible. Even the 1979 Accord my Sister owned was nothing great. She owned it about the same length of time she owned the Pinto (6 years). When she sold the Pinto, I bought it (it was my second, I also owned a '72) and drove it while my other car was being repaired (a Jensen-Healey). When I got my regular car back, I sold the Pinto to a friend for his kids to drive when they were in High School. It got all three of his kids through High School and College and then he sold it to another family. He was a big Chrysler fan, but even he was impressed by how tough the Pinto was. When my sister replaced the Accord, it was a smoking, rusted out hulk. If you drove the car more than 60 mph, the doors would flex out and the car would whistle like a banshee. There were major rust holes in the fenders (front and rear) and the car leaked oil all over the place. But, it still moved.... Ed > I don't recall any magazine naming the Pinto as Car of the Year (The Vega > was the Motor Trend Car of the Year). Wasn't it C&D? Vega was JUNK. <On the other hand, as the satisfied owner of a Pinto, I think your prejudice is showing. Bet you loced the Yugo too. > Did you ever own one? Do you recall what Honda was selling in the US at > the same time the Pinto was introduced (1970)? I do - it was CRAP. And > unsafe crap at that. The Honda Z - CRAP??? < My Sister replaced her 1973 Pinto with a 1979 > Honda Accord. The Accord was a nicer car than a 1979 Pinto, which by then > was an old end of life design, but when Pintos were originally introduced > there was nothing from Honda that I would have considered (did you ever > drive an original Civic - I did). Honda was new to CAR making in 1970, they were a motocycle manufacturer. They came along quickly with the CVCC. Although that earl Honda Z cas was pretty nice. < In fact as far as I was concerned there was only one Japanese car sold in the US in the > early 70's worth considering - the Datsun 510. Toyotas were slow, cramped, > noisy, and rusted away in just a couple of years. They were horrible. Even > the 1979 Accord my Sister owned was nothing great. She owned it about the > same length of time she owned the Pinto (6 years). That's a LONG time ago. I agree, the eary Japanese imprts were not very good. But then neither were American cars then. > When she sold the Pinto, I bought it (it was my second, I also owned a > '72) and drove it while my other car was being repaired (a Jensen-Healey). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fenders (front and rear) and the car leaked oil all over the place. But, > it still moved.... A Pinto that lasted past 50,000 miles was a rarity. Talk about rusting. As to this, that was 30 years ago. The Civic of today rates extremely high compared to ANY American competition. I did say I waited until now, resisting buying a Japanese car until this year. Honda moved from a not so good car to consistently rating at the top for reliability and few maintenance troubles. Although my step son (23) has managed to eat a couple clutches in his 08 Civic S-1. I don't believe, however, that it is the car, it's the driver. >> I don't recall any magazine naming the Pinto as Car of the Year >> (The Vega was the Motor Trend Car of the Year). [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > A Pinto that lasted past 50,000 miles was a rarity. My family owned 2 Pintos. I bought the first one in 1972 and drove it for three years while I was in college. I autocrossed it regularly (probably 15 times a year or so). When I graduated from college, I bought a new car, and sold that Pinto to my younger Sister. She drove it for another three years. When she graduated form college, she sold it back to me. My intention was to use it as a commuter car, but it didn't have A/C, so it wasn't long before I got tired of the hot weather. At that point I sold it locally and lost track of it. In the 7 years and around 120k miles that I was associated with the car it had three failures - a starter (which I burned out trying to keep the car going when I had water in the gas), a throttle cable (my fault, I had tied a knot in the cable where it connected to the pedal to raise the pedal height for autocrossing), and a timing belt (I fixed that in 30 minutes on the side of the road). The car never showed any rust, got decent mileage and was petty much bullet proof while we owned it. The second Pinto was a 1973 model. It was a 2L Automatic. Initially my younger sister drove it, then it was transfer to my older sister, and my younger sister got mine. My older sister drove it until 1979. She rarely changed the oil and never had the automatic transmission fluid changed or the bands adjusted despite repeated warning from me and my Father. Eventually the transmission refused to go into reverse. A local transmission shop fixed it for a couple of hundred dollars. Shortly after this she decided to buy a Honda Accord. Initially she was going to trade in the Pinto, but about this time I was in a wreck with my only car at the time (a Jensen-Healey), so I bought the Pinto to drive while I fixed the JH. I drove it for about 4 months. After the JH was back on the road, I sold the Pinto to a friend at work. His kids drive the car to High School and College for the next 5 years. He replaced one cam follower. Otherwise the car was trouble free. It had over 200k on it when it was sold and I lost track of it. I know there are people who owned Pintos had poor luck with them. But the same is true of Hondas, Toyotas, etc. I can only comment on my own experiences and the experiences of people close to me. Based on that, I believe Pintos were very good vehicles. Compared to cars in the same price range in the early 70's, they were an excellent value and very reliable. I think most people who say bad things about Pintos, never actually owned one, or even knew anyone that owned one. > Talk about rusting. As to this, that was 30 years ago. The Civic of > today rates extremely high compared to ANY American competition. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > step son (23) has managed to eat a couple clutches in his 08 Civic > S-1. I don't believe, however, that it is the car, it's the driver. A couple of clutches???? And I though my Son was bad. I think Honda makes fine cars. But I don't think they are that much better than comparable vehicles from Ford or Chevy. And, at least for me, my Fusion has far more room for the driver. Ed >> Talk about rusting. As to this, that was 30 years ago. The Civic of today >> rates extremely high compared to ANY American competition. I did say I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vehicles from Ford or Chevy. And, at least for me, my Fusion has far more > room for the driver. Trust me it is NOT the car it is a driver who rides the hell out of the clutch. The flywheel was also blackened. The Accord was a nicer car than a 1979 Pinto, which by > then was an old end of life design, but when Pintos were originally > introduced there was nothing from Honda that I would have considered > (did you ever drive an original Civic - I did). One of my buddies' parents still has a CVCC. The dad bought it when he first graduated medical school. Because it just didn't break, all five of their kids got the car as their "first" to drive. Now it just pretty much sits, but is still drivable. Interesting little factoid - you have to use the clutch to engage first gear, but then the automatic tranny takes over for second and third. I have never driven it, simply because I can't fit my legs behind the steering wheel. (This was the same reason my mother didn't pass me down her '73 VW bug.) Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >>> The Malibu was named "North American Car of the Year" (kicking the >>> Honda Accord's a.s in the process), as well as being placed on "Car [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Ed When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was with the AC on high and the car could barely get out of it's own way. He got rid of it after a few years and bought one of the GM Personal Luxury cars that were popular back then. He was SO much happier with his GM. > When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he > drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was > with the AC on high and the car could barely get out of it's own way. > He got rid of it after a few years and bought one of the GM Personal > Luxury cars that were popular back then. He was SO much happier with > his GM. All the Japanese cars into the mid 80's had rotary compressors on them. They were poor at best. The first Japanese cars in America were TERRIBLE, like the first Korean cars. A 1962 Honda is NOT a 2008 Honda! BUT if you NEED to make that comparison to feel good about your New American car, that's okay too. >> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he >> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > NEED to make that comparison to feel good about your New American car, > that's okay too. Come on - Ashton's comments are very fair as this thread has unfolded. Look back through this thread and see how many posters have hurled acclaim at the Honda's of the 70's which were really pure junk. Likewise Toyota (except for a model or two here and there) and Datusn (likewise, except for a model here and there). They were major rust buckets that didn't go 1/2 the mileage of even a Vega (which was not at all known for it's body integrity), and certainly earned their reputation at the time for being pure junk. He was not talking about the Honda of today - he was taking in context, and in reply to a portion of this thread that was making reference to the cars of the 70's. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> NEED to make that comparison to feel good about your New American car, >> that's okay too. > Come on - Ashton's comments are very fair as this thread has unfolded. > Look back through this thread and see how many posters have hurled acclaim > at the Honda's of the 70's which were really pure junk. See - here we go again. IF you NEED to call the Honda junk to feel good about your American car HAVE AT IT. Remember the CVCC? That was a Honda. > Likewise Toyota (except > for a model or two here and there) and Datusn > (likewise, except for a model here and there). They were major rust [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > today - he was taking in context, and in reply to a portion of this thread > that was making reference to the cars of the 70's. Okay okay you sold me the VEGA was the best car ever built. MUCH better than the Rolls Royce. Honda certainly can't build a good Car. CHEVY RULES! The Vette is the FASTEST car EVER built! MUCH faster than the Maseratti and Lamborghini or Ferarri. The Honda of 1970 wasn't a great car. In context, however, it was better than the PURE sh.t coming out of Detroit. >>>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When >>>> he [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > feel good about your American car HAVE AT IT. Remember the CVCC? > That was a Honda. And that engine system was CRAP. If you are citting the CVCC engine as evidence of Honda "goodness" then you are making my case for me. If it was so great, why did they quit using the system? Hondas in the early 70's were small, and got great gas mileage. They also broke often and runsted away, even here in NC. I can't imagine what they must have been like in the northeast or midwest. >> Likewise Toyota (except > for a model or two here and there) and >> Datusn (likewise, except for a model here and there). They were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The Honda of 1970 wasn't a great car. In context, however, it was > better than the PURE sh.t coming out of Detroit. Only in your twisted mind. I doubt you have ever even seen a 1970 Honda, much less driven one. I think Honda builds decent cars. Honda vehicles are generally well engineered and well assembled. I really like the current Accord Coupe, but unfortunately it's driving position is uncomfortable for me. Every time I see the current four door Accord, I think Saturn. I'd love to own an S2000, except it is too cramped for me. The Pilot and Odyssey are nice, but I don't want a mini-van (or a mini van disguised as an SUV). The Ridgeline is a bad joke. The current CR-V is nice enough, but probably only third or fourth best in class. The Civics are really nice, but again despite being much larger on the outside, they are still cramped inside. I just don't have any interest in the Element. So, at least for now, Honda makes nothing I am interested in. It doesn't mean I wouldn't buy on in the future (especially an S2000 if they would just make the interior a little larger, say maybe as large as a BMW Roadster). Ed >> See - here we go again. IF you NEED to call the Honda junk to feel >> good about your American car HAVE AT IT. Remember the CVCC? That was a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > away, even here in NC. I can't imagine what they must have been like in > the northeast or midwest. Okay CHEVY builds the BEST (BY FAR) cars in the world! The Honda is PURE sh.t and/ not up to the QUALITY if the Chevrolet! CHEVY RULES!!!! >> Come on - Ashton's comments are very fair as this thread has unfolded. >> Look back through this thread and see how many posters have hurled >> acclaim at the Honda's of the 70's which were really pure junk. > > See - here we go again. IF you NEED to call the Honda junk to feel good > about your American car HAVE AT IT. Remember the CVCC? That was a Honda. You really lack the skills to carry on a conversation don't you? I did not call the current generation of Japanese cars junk. You may not have been around in the 70's but I was and those Hondas were pure junk. Sorry - hate to burst your bubble. They were every bit as bad as the worst of the cars of that era that you take such delight in bashing. Yeah - the CVCC was a great engine idea. The rest of the car was pure junk though. So - after a short time you had a wonderful design concept sitting upon a pile of rust in your garage. >> Likewise Toyota (except > for a model or two here and there) and Datusn >> (likewise, except for a model here and there). They were major rust [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Vette is the FASTEST car EVER built! MUCH faster than the Maseratti > and Lamborghini or Ferarri. You really shouldn't post. You just make yourself look more foolish with each effort. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> Come on - Ashton's comments are very fair as this thread has unfolded. >>> Look back through this thread and see how many posters have hurled [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > junk though. So - after a short time you had a wonderful design concept > sitting upon a pile of rust in your garage. Not only was I around, I had invested in an auto parts jobber in the 70's. I got to see what pats sold. The Japanese cars were no better or worse than American cars of that era. Rust? In Japan they don't use tons of SALT on their roads. They had to adapt. But I also remember the 74 Impalas with rust up to the door handles as well. > >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he > >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The Honda of 1970 wasn't a great car. In context, however, it was better > than the PURE sh.t coming out of Detroit. I can remember as a young adult in the mid 80's reading and hearing about the great virtues of the great and almighty Honda Prelude. They were perfect. God would drive them if he were on earth and needed to. Fast forward to the year 2008, and you can probably find more mid 70's Vegas on the road today than you can than that of the "perfect" Honda of the mid -80's. If Detroit built "sh.t" during this time period, what did Japan build??? > >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he > >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The Honda of 1970 wasn't a great car. In context, however, it was better > than the PURE sh.t coming out of Detroit. < I can remember as a young adult in the mid 80's reading and hearing < about the great virtues of the great and almighty Honda Prelude. They were perfect. there is NO such thing as a "perfect" anything on this Earth. < God would drive them if he were on earth and needed to. < Fast forward to the year 2008, and you can probably find more mid 70's < Vegas on the road today than you can than that of the "perfect" Honda < of the mid -80's. Proof???? < If Detroit built "sh.t" during this time period, what did Japan build??? Better sh.t. > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > there is NO such thing as a "perfect" anything on this Earth. Then you, and your kind, need to tone down your praisings of the great and mighty foreign automobliles when posting on newsgroups. I've run across your kind many times. When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing "Nobody said Toyotas (or fill in your favorite auto manufacture) was perfect" Well, yes you do, until as I mentioned above, your hand is called. > < God would drive them if he were on earth and needed to. > < Fast forward to the year 2008, and you can probably find more mid 70's > < Vegas on the road today than you can than that of the "perfect" Honda [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Better sh.t.- Hide quoted text - Well, at least we can both agree that Japan built "sh.t" 20 years ago. > - Show quoted text - > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing > > > "Nobody said Toyotas (or fill in your favorite auto manufacture) was > perfect" My Audi is perfect. SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:27:25 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, > something compelled coachros...@hotmail.com, to say: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. As are my Pontiacs. Perfection, in my books is zero times to the mechanic. BTW, just checked out my 3.8's on more time to make sure they didnt blow up. Still running smoothly. On Oct 3, 1:10 am, Steve Daniels <sdani...@gorge.net> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:27:25 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, > something compelled coachros...@hotmail.com, to say: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. As are my Pontiacs. Perfection, in my books is zero times to the mechanic. BTW, just checked out my 3.8's on more time to make sure they didnt blow up. Still running smoothly. ========== Yeah yeah we know FASTER than A Maseratti! Better built than a Lamborghini! The BEST CARS ever to hit the road. Everything else is sh.t! We know, we know. > On Oct 3, 1:10 am, Steve Daniels <sdani...@gorge.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:27:25 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Lamborghini! The BEST CARS ever to hit the road. Everything else is sh.t! > We know, we know. Actually, that seems to be your attitude towards Honda. >" >>> >>> > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Actually, that seems to be your attitude towards Honda. TRY AGAIN! All I have dealt with his how CHEVY RULES bullshit. So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? Because the CHEVY KICKS a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same juvenile BULLSHIT that has been put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made cars. Which would include cars made in Europe - you know - the sh.t like Maseratti, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and so on. Not to mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said the Mitsubishi cars have been DREADFUL lately. Mazda ain't nothing to write Tokyo about either! Subaru and Suziki and snorers. Coming from a recently horrid past, the Hyundai and KIA are kicking a.s today. Sorry - I find Chevy owners the biggest WHINERS in the world! That's especially true around race tracks. Before a race the Chevy guys are the biggest BAD a.ses in history, after they LOSE the race they are a bunch of whining little boys filled with excuses and rationalizations that the really DIDN'T LOSE! > >" >>> > >>> > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > TRY AGAIN! All I have dealt with his how CHEVY RULES bullshit. If you would stay away from the GM Group, you probably would not hear the "CHEVY RULES bullshit" We tend to stay away from the Toyota group, ourselves. So I > retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? My guess is that at this point, Honda is shoving more money into the Indy cars than anyone at this moment. Kinda like the flavor of the month. Indy had seen a lot of different engines from different manufacturers. Honda just happens to be the current whore. Because the CHEVY KICKS > a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same juvenile BULLSHIT that has been > put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is > almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made cars. Take the politics and economics out of the mix, and the American made cars are just as good, or better than comperable cars made overseas, if you are comparing the AUTOMOBILES. > Which would include cars made in Europe - you know - the sh.t like > Maseratti, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and so on. Got a point there. The Pontiac g6 cannot possiblibly compare to a Lamborghini. I guess that is PROOF that foreign cars are superior. Not to > mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said the > Mitsubishi cars have been DREADFUL lately. Mazda ain't nothing to write [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > whining little boys filled with excuses and rationalizations that the really > DIDN'T LOSE!- Hide quoted text - You probabaly are not refering to NASCAR (which I guess, is probably too red-neck for you to begin with), where Chevy "kicks a.s" on an almost annual basis. They dont win the championship EVERY year, it just seems like they do. Even in the year 2008, which most race fans would admit is a "down" year for Chevy, there they are, poised to win another championship. Jimmy Johnson, driving a Chevy, leading the points. 6 out of the top 8 drivers in the points standings, driving Chevys. Only 12 drivers are in the running for the championship. Only three of them drive Toyotas. At this time , the Toyotas are the bottom three out of the twelve running for the cup. Yeah, you got some real pieces of sh.t here. > - Show quoted text - > >>> > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > TRY AGAIN! All I have dealt with his how CHEVY RULES bullshit. < If you would stay away from the GM Group, you probably would not hear < the "CHEVY RULES bullshit" I am not the little toadstoll that started the crossposting to it. Somebody DESPERATE to rally his troops was. I am unimpressed. I was unimpressed with Chevy owners on race day as well. At the start of the day they owned KING KONG - at the end of the day that had a million EXCUSES. < We tend to stay away from the Toyota group, ourselves. And I should give a sh.t? I own a HONDA. >> So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? < My guess is that at this point, Honda is shoving more money into the < Indy cars than anyone at this moment. You're SURE of that? Honda has MORE money than Gneeral Motors? WHY aren't they running the invincible 3.8????? < Indy had seen a lot of different engines from different manufacturers.Honda just happens to be the current whore. Not in the past 10 years. Long gone are the days of the Chevy Cosworth. LONG LONG LONG GONE. Why the switch? When the Honda cars starting kicking their a.ses. Chevey did what they and Ford ALWAYS DO when they get beat. They RUN! The first season that the AMC Javelins started kicking their a.ses in Trans-Am they both QUIT and RAN AWAY. Like the little children they ARE. Just like they RAN AWAY form Indy cars. > Because the CHEVY KICKS a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same juvenile > BULLSHIT that has been > put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is > almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made > cars. < Take the politics and economics out of the mix, and the American made < cars are just as good, or better than comperable cars made overseas, < if you are comparing the AUTOMOBILES. Really? Then WHY does a rice-burner have such better resale value? Care to check the resale on the Chevy Equinox versus the Honda CR-V after a year? Two? Spare me the BULLSHIT. Like claiming the 3.8 was in the Top 10 BEST eninges ever made. I bet your buddies in the Chevy group have been shushing you on THAT claim. > Which would include cars made in Europe - you know - the sh.t like > Maseratti, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and so on. < Got a point there. Sure your IDIOTIC claim that the GM 3.8 was in the top 10 BEST engines ever made. THAT is the point. To start to show ytou how utterly STUPID the claim was little boy! < The Pontiac g6 cannot possiblibly compare to a Lamborghini. Duhhhhhhh NO sh.t SHERLOCK! What gave you the first clue? The $400,000 price tag on the Lamborghini? Or the fact that the Lamborghini is faster in first geat with 2 spark pug wires unplugged than your 3.8 Pontiac???????? WITH A BLOWER ON IT! < I guess that is PROOF that foreign cars are superior. At least that SOME are! But the REAL point was to try to get you to realize how incredibly STUPID your claim that the GM 3.8 engine was in the top 10 best engines in the world was. I keep hopping that reality will bite you on the a.s and you'll be able to admit it was a damn foolish claim. > Not to mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said > the > Mitsubishi cars have been DREADFUL lately. Mazda ain't nothing to write > Tokyo about either! Subaru and Suziki and snorers. > Coming from a recently horrid past, the Hyundai and KIA are kicking a.s > today. > Sorry - I find Chevy owners the biggest WHINERS in the world! That's > especially true around race tracks. Before a race the Chevy guys are the > biggest BAD a.ses in history, after they LOSE the race they are a bunch of > whining little boys filled with excuses and rationalizations that the > really > DIDN'T LOSE!- Hide quoted text - < You probabaly are not refering to NASCAR (which I guess, is probably < too red-neck for you to begin with), where Chevy "kicks a.s" on an almost annual basis. I think the Ford people would disagree with that claim. Did you ever see an Indy car and a NASCAR car race? Guess who wins????? YOUR CHEVY?? And you're wrong. We used to race stock cars long ago. > Like claiming the 3.8 was in the Top 10 BEST eninges ever made. I bet your > buddies in the Chevy group have been shushing you on THAT claim. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bite you on the a.s and you'll be able to admit it was a damn foolish > claim. You are truly a moron. Three times in one post you manage to insult the wrong person. I made the comment that the 3.8 was on the top 10 engines list, and I told you the company who gave the award. You can't seem to put your hatred (likely jealously, because you drive a Honda) aside and actually read who you are replying too. Try doing that, it makes you look like a tiny bit less of an idiot. >> At least that SOME are! But the REAL point was to try to get you to >> realize how incredibly STUPID your claim that the GM 3.8 engine was in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > actually read who you are replying too. Try doing that, it makes you look > like a tiny bit less of an idiot. But it doesn't check out. And EVEN IF it did - anybody who even knows how to START a car would know it is BULLSHIT! Top 10 of the 20th century? Against several Mercedes engines, Jaguar, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Bugatti. Ferarri, Lamborghini, Maseratti, Packard, Hudson, Studebaker and so on? Not even in the top 50! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > unimpressed with Chevy owners on race day as well. At the start of the day > they owned KING KONG - at the end of the day that had a million EXCUSES. Yeah, you are a toadstoll, and a dipshit as well. This is going to take some time. Be patient, and try to follow. > < We tend to stay away from the Toyota group, ourselves. > > And I should give a sh.t? I own a HONDA. Same difference. Neither are GM's,(that is what this group is about, you DO know that, don't you?) Both are Japanese. Across a big pond, I think. Not American. Or GM. > >> So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're SURE of that? Honda has MORE money than Gneeral Motors? WHY > aren't they running the invincible 3.8????? Who really cares?? Indy racing is not exactly polliticaly correct at this time. Attendence and television ratings are not exactly world beaters at this time. In a word,, no one(other than you) really cares what kind of engines Indy cars run. Or even if Indy cars run, PERIOD!!!! > < Indy had seen a lot of different engines from different > manufacturers.Honda just happens to be the current whore. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a.ses in Trans-Am they both QUIT and RAN AWAY. Like the little children they > ARE. Just like they RAN AWAY form Indy cars. More likely they quit thowing money away at a sport no one watches anymore. > > Because the CHEVY KICKS a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same juvenile > > BULLSHIT that has been > > put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is > > almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made > > cars. I thought you were comparing your God-like Honda to American made cars, as opposed to foriegn cars in general. > < Take the politics and economics out of the mix, and the American made > < cars are just as good, or better than comperable cars made overseas, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > eninges ever made. I bet your buddies in the Chevy group have been shushing > you on THAT claim. Now, follow me closely here, if you possibly can. I'll type slowly, so you can understand better. I never, EVER, EVER, NEVER, n--e--v--e--r, said, (not a single time!!!) said that the 3.8 engine was a top ten BEST engine ever made. Never!! Honestly!! Don't take my word on this, check my prior posts. Someone else may have made this claim, but NOT me. Did I say that I never claimed that the 3.8 engine was the BEST engine ever made???? OK, guess I have said that. Do you understand???? After you check my claim, and wipe the egg off your face, I WILL say this about the 3.8 engine: They are the SECOND best engine that I (EXTREME EMPHASIS ON THE WORD "I")have ever used in an automobile! The BEST engine I have ever used in a car is the GM 350 (I guess today it would be called a 5.7 litre). Like the 3.8 engine, you just couldnt wear them out. Ran fast. Good horsepower. Decent fuel mileage. The General sold MILLIONS of them. How the hell do you sell MILLIONS of ANYTHING, if it isnt any good???? Maybe GM made a mistake when they started making LESS of the 3.8's and 5.7's. > > Which would include cars made in Europe - you know - the sh.t like > > Maseratti, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and so on. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > first geat with 2 spark pug wires unplugged than your 3.8 Pontiac???????? > WITH A BLOWER ON IT! AT this point, I guess I should say that you should really learn to understand sarcasm, A ten year old should have picked that up. I apolgize for over-estimating you. > < I guess that is PROOF that foreign cars are superior. > At least that SOME are! But the REAL point was to try to get you to > realize how incredibly STUPID your claim that the GM 3.8 engine was in the > top 10 best engines in the world was. I keep hopping that reality will bite > you on the a.s and you'll be able to admit it was a damn foolish claim. "REALITY" bites me on the a.s ever single day,when I go out and start one of these 3.8 powered automobliles, just like I have done FOR MANY YEARS, and know that they will get me from point A to point B quickly, if needed, or 30mpg mileage if driven right. They don't spend time in the shop for repairs, either. Damn, they are dependable!!! And Gosh, I didnt even have to pay 400,000 dollars for them. > > Not to mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said > > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > really > > DIDN'T LOSE!- Hide quoted text - A funny thing with the word you used, "whiners". Take away the "h", and replace it with an "n", and you get the word "WINNER" Which is exactly what Chevy has done more than ANYONE, EVER, on the racetrack. > < You probabaly are not refering to NASCAR (which I guess, is probably > < too red-neck for you to begin with), where Chevy "kicks a.s" on an almost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an Indy car and a NASCAR car race? Guess who wins????? YOUR CHEVY?? > And you're wrong. We used to race stock cars long ago.- Hide quoted text - Indy cars don't race against NASCAR. They are different things. Kinda like trying to compare American football with Rugby. Once again, they are not the same thing. > - Show quoted text - (I am being taken to wonderland by Alice) > I am not the little toadstoll that started the crossposting to it. > Somebody DESPERATE to rally his troops was. I am unimpressed. I was > unimpressed with Chevy owners on race day as well. At the start of the day > they owned KING KONG - at the end of the day that had a million EXCUSES. < Yeah, you are a toadstoll, and a dipshit as well. This is getting educational. < This is going to take some time. Be patient, and try to follow. I bet! > < We tend to stay away from the Toyota group, ourselves. > And I should give a sh.t? I own a HONDA. < Same difference. We're off to a good start. Are we looking for the mad hatter or the wizard on this trip? <Neither are GM's,(that is what this group is about, you DO know that,don't you?) THIS GROUP - the one I was posting to happily until it started getting CROSPOSTED by somebody DESPERATELY trying to call up his reserves from the GM group was rec.autos.misc. Got it TOADSTOOL? < Both are Japanese.Across a big pond, I think.Not American. Or GM. Thank God. Are you pissed because the Toyota now OUTSELLS the Chevy????????? Is it that time of the month or are you this bitchy ALL the time? > >> So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? > < My guess is that at this point, Honda is shoving more money into the > < Indy cars than anyone at this moment. > You're SURE of that? Honda has MORE money than Gneeral Motors? WHY > aren't they running the invincible 3.8????? < Who really cares?? So your BEST reply when you are show to be WRONG is .. "Who really cares?" Wow! < Indy racing is not exactly polliticaly correct at this time. Really? Says who? Oh that's right - they have a couple of "BROADS" driving eh? And WINNING.. Ain't life a bitch for Rednecks? < Attendence and television ratings are not exactly world beaters at this time.In a word,, no one(other than you) really cares what kind of engines < Indy cars run.Or even if Indy cars run, PERIOD!!!! And yet they seem to fill the stands. Somebody cares. They run on network TV. > < Indy had seen a lot of different engines from different > manufacturers.Honda just happens to be the current whore. > Not in the past 10 years. Long gone are the days of the Chevy Cosworth. > LONG LONG LONG GONE. Why the switch? When the Honda cars starting kicking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they > ARE. Just like they RAN AWAY form Indy cars. < More likely they quit thowing money away at a sport no one watches anymore. Yeah that was the SAME excuse Chevy used when they quit Trans Am right aftyer the Javelins started blowing their doors off. The little BOYS at GM couldn't take being BEATEN so BADLY by Kelvinators! WHat a BITCH when even a REFIGERATOR is FASTER than your Chevy!! Life is truly a bitch. > > Because the CHEVY KICKS a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same > > juvenile BULLSHIT that has been > > put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is > > almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made > > cars. < I thought you were comparing your God-like Honda to American made cars, as opposed to foriegn cars in general. Poor confused little boy. I only said I OWN a Honda. Little Chevy WEENIES started to defent their brand by attacking the Honda. Want to jump in and play? Want to compare trade in values after a year or two between your PERFECT PERFECT Equinox to my CR-V? Kelly blue book? Or do you have some SPECIAL book printed by Chevrolet division?? > < Take the politics and economics out of the mix, and the American made > < cars are just as good, or better than comperable cars made overseas, > < if you are comparing the AUTOMOBILES. > Really? Then WHY does a rice-burner have such better resale value? Care > to check the resale on the Chevy Equinox versus the Honda CR-V after a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shushing > you on THAT claim. < Now, follow me closely here, if you possibly can. I'll type slowly, so you can understand better. OH PLEASE! Go REAL SLOW... You might lose yourself. < I never, EVER, EVER, NEVER, n--e--v--e--r, said, (not a single time!!!) said that the 3.8 engine was a top ten BEST engine ever made.Never!! Honestly!! No - somebody else did - YOU just repeated it as GOSPEL from St. Peter! < Don't take my word on this, check my prior posts. Someone else may have made this claim, but NOT me. We know this - you merely genuflected and made the sign of the cross when he did. < Did I say that I never claimed that the 3.8 engine was the BEST engine ever made????OK, guess I have said that. No - but close. < After you check my claim, and wipe the egg off your face, I WILL say this about the 3.8 engine: A ather mediocre powerpl;ant AS GM MAKES IT. Loads of potential when built by somebody who can make GOOD engines. < They are the SECOND best engine that I (EXTREME EMPHASIS ON THE WORD "I")have ever used in an automobile! The BEST engine I have ever used < in a car is the GM 350 (I guess today it would be called a 5.7 litre). I will agree that the SMALL BLOCK Chevy V-8 is a much better engine. (265, 283, 327, 350). But you have such LIMITED experience, you've never owned a car with a really GOOD engine. Although the 350 is pretty good. < Like the 3.8 engine, you just couldnt wear them out. They tend to do that as GM builds them pretty fast. HOWEVER - that being said - with some competent building the small block GM V-8 can be good for 200,000 miles plus.(See Edelbrock crate) just NOT as it comes off the GM assembly line. I can say' "it's not a BAD engine." < Ran fast. Compared to what? A Yugo? A Lada? Okay! I'll give you that. < Good horsepower. Uhhhhhhhhhhhh let me have it from an Edelbrock crate please. < Decent fuel mileage. YEAH RIGHT! Compared to what a HUMMER? < The General sold MILLIONS of them. Small block? TENS of MILLIONS. < How the hell do you sell MILLIONS of ANYTHING, if it isnt any good???? Ask the folks at Hostess, They sell a SHITPILE of Twinkies. That doesn't make it good food. Just that people like high doses of sugar! > > Which would include cars made in Europe - you know - the sh.t like > > Maseratti, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and so on. > < Got a point there. > Sure your IDIOTIC claim that the GM 3.8 was in the top 10 BEST engines > ever made. THAT is the point. To start to show ytou how utterly STUPID the > claim was little boy! > > < The Pontiac g6 cannot possiblibly compare to a Lamborghini. > Duhhhhhhh NO sh.t SHERLOCK! What gave you the first clue? The $400,000 > price tag on the Lamborghini? Or the fact that the Lamborghini is faster > in > first geat with 2 spark plug wires unplugged than your 3.8 Pontiac???????? > WITH A BLOWER ON IT! < AT this point, I guess I should say that you should really learn to understand sarcasm, A ten year old should have picked that up. I < apolgize for over-estimating you. You don't recognize it when you get it back? *I* am not the one who kicked this can off the hill by claiming it was in the TOP 10 BEST Engines of the 20th century. Putting it in the SAME LEAGUE as the Lamborghini and Maseratti. Since in the years they have been made, each has made 10 different engines I dare suggest ALL are infinitely better than ANYTHING GM itself has ever made much less the 3.8! > your claim that the GM 3.8 engine was in the top 10 best engines in the > world was. I keep hopping that reality will bite > you on the a.s and you'll be able to admit it was a damn foolish claim. < "REALITY" bites me on the a.s ever single day,when I go out and start < one of these 3.8 powered automobliles, just like I have done FOR MANY < YEARS, and know that they will get me from point A to point B quickly, < if needed, or 30mpg mileage if driven right.They don't spend time in the shop for repairs, either. Like my friend with the 85 Yugo. < Damn, they are dependable!!!And Gosh, I didnt even have to pay 400,000 dollars for them. <sigh> I am arguing with a Cumquat! > > Not to mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said > > the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > really > > DIDN'T LOSE! < A funny thing with the word you used, "whiners". Take away the "h", < and replace it with an "n", and you get the word "WINNER" No the H stays. < Which is exactly what Chevy has done more than ANYONE, EVER, on the racetrack. Only when they saturate the field. And it depends on what kind of racing you are talking about. NASCAR? I believe that Chrysler still won the most races there. I think Ford is second. But take solace, Chevy HAS won more NASCAR races than Toyota! You can sleep well tonight. NHRA? What class? When's the last time a Chevy engine won in TOP FUEL???? Funnycars? Rails? We all already KNOW about Indy cars. but that doesn't count because THEY have "BROADS" driving there and even winning. JUST NOT MACHO any more. Honda engines and "bitches" at the wheel! The world is ending. Transam? Like I said - when the Javelins started whipping the a.s of the FACTORY Chevys they QUIT and RAN HOME TO MOMMY! SCCA? Road races? Formula One? WHERE outside of NASCAR is Chevy a force in racing? > < You probabaly are not refering to NASCAR (which I guess, is probably > < too red-neck for you to begin with), where Chevy "kicks a.s" on an > almost > annual basis. > I think the Ford people would disagree with that claim. Did you ever see > an Indy car and a NASCAR car race? Guess who wins????? YOUR CHEVY?? > And you're wrong. We used to race stock cars long ago.- Hide quoted text - < Indy cars don't race against NASCAR. They are different things. There HAVE been exhibitions, you DO know that, don't you? WHO WON??????? Tell me - which cars hold the SPEED RECORD at the tracks they both race at? Here's a fukking CLUE - it is NOT CHEVROLET!!! AH SO! < Kinda like trying to compare American football with Rugby. Both races use oval tracks, and sometimes the SAME tracks. Which cars hold the speed records on those shared tracks??? Here is a HINT - NOT CHEVROLET! AH SO! < Once again, they are not the same thing. No sh.t! The Indy cars are FASTER! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Chevy????????? Is it that time of the month or are you this bitchy ALL the > time? Just for clarification, Toyota Corporation, which encompesses ALL of the cars and trucks of all brands, Do out-sell Chevrolet, one of several brands owned by parent company, General Motors. At this time, it still has not been decided who is selling more vechicles, General Motors, or Toyota. September sales figures still had the General in the lead, but not by much. Be patient, as I have told Jim Higgins, you time will come, and Toyota will surpass GM in sales. But why should you care?? You drive a Honda. > > >> So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? > > < My guess is that at this point, Honda is shoving more money into the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > time.In a word,, no one(other than you) really cares what kind of engines > < Indy cars run.Or even if Indy cars run, PERIOD!!!! Nascar consistently kicks Indy car racing in televsion ratings. Why do you think the Indy series wont go head to head with Nascar on Sunday??? It's a tell-tale sign, when Indy's showcase event, The INDY 500, on an almost annual basis has a lower rating than Nascar's 600 mile race held on the same day. The Coca Cola, or whatever sponser has it at this time, would certainly rate below the Daytona 500, Brickyard 400, and Bristol night race, at the very least, in terms of prestige. > And yet they seem to fill the stands. Somebody cares. They run on > network TV. Would you HONESTY try to compare attendence or ratings of INDY to NASCAR???????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > < Indy had seen a lot of different engines from different > > manufacturers.Honda just happens to be the current whore. > > Not in the past 10 years. Long gone are the days of the Chevy Cosworth. [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > (265, 283, 327, 350). But you have such LIMITED experience, you've never > owned a car with a really GOOD engine. Although the 350 is pretty good. Got a little more experience than you think. Owned a couple of two automoblies in my time. In addition to a pair of 3.8 litre powered GP's, I also happen to own a 98 Trans AM with a 5.7 ram air engine. "Pretty good" does not start to describe it. Absolute freaking rocket. For a helluva less than 400,000 dollars. Bring your best, (ESPECAILLY comperably-priced) Honda to to track to face this beast, after my 3.8 GTP has mopped up the floor with you. This would be real funny. > < Like the 3.8 engine, you just couldnt wear them out. > > They tend to do that as GM builds them pretty fast. HOWEVER - that being > said - with some competent building the small block GM V-8 can be good for > 200,000 miles plus.(See Edelbrock crate) just NOT as it comes off the GM > assembly line. I can say' "it's not a BAD engine." Your halfway there. Come on. Say it. The 3.8 is a GOOD engine. A GREAT en gine, although I would not expect you to admit that. > < Ran fast. > > Compared to what? A Yugo? A Lada? Okay! I'll give you that. Toyota Camry.Honda Accord. Almost all Pony cars made fom the mid 70's to late eighties. A bicycle. About 98 per cent of the cars on the road today. Or yesterday. or 30 years ago. > < Good horsepower. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > YEAH RIGHT! Compared to what a HUMMER? Toyota Camry. Honda Accord. > < The General sold MILLIONS of them. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Like my friend with the 85 Yugo. Your friend's Yugo is FAST?????? > < Damn, they are dependable!!!And Gosh, I didnt even have to pay 400,000 > dollars for them. > > <sigh> I am arguing with a Cumquat! Thus, what does that make you??? This cumquat still stand by what he says about the 3.8, that they are a helluva engine. I have millions of sales to back me up. What do you have??? Twinkees??????? > > > Not to mention Toyota, Nissan and Honda. IF you bothered to read, I said > > > the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > races there. I think Ford is second. But take solace, Chevy HAS won more > NASCAR races than Toyota! You can sleep well tonight. CHYSLER has won more races in NASCAR????? Geez, Chevy and Ford have been fighting for the top spot for years. Take away Richard Petty, and Chrsyler is probably not terribly far ahead of Toyota. > NHRA? What class? When's the last time a Chevy engine won in TOP > FUEL???? Funnycars? Rails? > > We all already KNOW about Indy cars. but that doesn't count because THEY > have "BROADS" driving there and even winning. JUST NOT MACHO any more. Honda ... > > read more » ... > (I am being taken to wonderland by Alice) > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Chevy????????? Is it that time of the month or are you this bitchy ALL the > time? Just for clarification, Toyota Corporation, which encompesses ALL of the cars and trucks of all brands, Do out-sell Chevrolet, one of several brands owned by parent company, General Motors. Look weenie. The Toyota CAMRY is the #1 selling car IN AMERICA! It OUTSELLS your SHITTY CHEVY! GOT IT? I that gives you Chevy folks an inferiority complex, but you have it because you ARE inferior! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - September sales showed that the Chevy Silverado was the number one seller in the US. August sales showed that the Ford F-150 was the number one seller. As gas prices continue to fall, guess what the number one seller will be in upcoming months? (and number two) It wont be a Toyota. Of course, at this point you can say these are pickup trucks if you like, but neither one are Toyotas. Or Hondas, for that matter. > Look weenie. The Toyota CAMRY is the #1 selling car IN AMERICA! It > OUTSELLS > your SHITTY CHEVY! GOT IT? > I that gives you Chevy folks an inferiority complex, but you have it > because you ARE inferior < September sales showed that the Chevy Silverado was the number one seller in the US. August sales showed that the Ford F-150 was the number one seller. Funny J.D. Powers says the Camry. < As gas prices continue to fall, guess what the number one seller will be in upcoming months? (and number two) It wont be a Toyota. You really are a clueless fukk aren't you? Seen what has been going on with the economy? It is called "crash and burn." You are going to see lots of automakers all over the world vaporize. The American brands are just likely to be the first but they won't be alone. Gotta have a JOB to buy a car. Maybe you missed that the stock market has taken a bigger dump % wise than it did in 1929 and it is still in free fall. Start thinking of 40% unemployment. Seems to be come confusion here. The Camry is the number one selling CAR BRAND, not the number one selling VEHICLE. Both Ford and Chevrolet sell more VEHICLES, trucks. The Ford F150 is, and has been for thirty one years, the number one selling VEHICLE at a rates as much as twice that of the Camry. When it comes to total truck sales Chevrolet is number TWO but GM outsells Ford in trucks because it has TWO trucks brands, Chevy and GMC. Dodge up until 2005 outsold the Camry as well. When it comes to CARS, Toyota advertises as "The number one car BRAND in America." Lexus and Scion or separate brands. They can not say number one manufacture of cars in America, since GM sells more cars among it brands than Toyota among it brands Toyota nearly lost the number one car spot the Accord in 2007 but held on by directly dumping the slow selling Camry Solara on the rental car fleets for thousands under invoice. Domestics, because of franchise laws, can NOT sell directly to fleets or sell at Auctions. That must be done through franchised dealerships. Toyota does not sell to dealerships but to Regional Distributors that sell to the individual dealerships Over 55% of the vehicles sold in the US by Toyota are not made in North America. On the other had over 80% of the vehicles sold by both GM and Ford in the US ARE made in North America Toyota also dumped thousands of the equally slow selling Tundra's at the Manheim Auto Auctions the last three months of 2007. $40,000 2WDs were going for as low as $25,000 None of the import brands have ever succeeded in penetration the Corporate or Government Fleets with the exception of the state of Tennessee buying Nissan trucks made there >> Look weenie. The Toyota CAMRY is the #1 selling car IN AMERICA! It >> OUTSELLS [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > than it did in 1929 and it is still in free fall. Start thinking of 40% > unemployment. > Seems to be come confusion here. The Camry is the number one selling CAR > BRAND, not the number one selling VEHICLE. No the Toyota Camry was the # 1 selling CAR. Chevy is still # 1 product BRAND with Ford a close second. Duh! Which Chevy car is it that you think outsells the Camry? ;) >> Seems to be come confusion here. The Camry is the number one selling CAR >> BRAND, not the number one selling VEHICLE. > > No the Toyota Camry was the # 1 selling CAR. Chevy is still # 1 product > BRAND with Ford a close second. > Duh! Which Chevy car is it that you think outsells the Camry? ;) Right now, according to J.D. Powers - NONE! >> Look weenie. The Toyota CAMRY is the #1 selling car IN AMERICA! It >> OUTSELLS your SHITTY CHEVY! GOT IT? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Or Hondas, for that matter. Heh - I was hearing a finance guy talk on the news yesterday. He indicated that GM might have more issues now that gas prices are going down. It won't be idling plants, but rather the opposite. As they've spent millions (billions?) restructuring in order to serve the subcompact markets with the Astra and Malibu and whatnot, people are again starting to buy trucks in droves. Unfortunately GM (and Ford/Toyota/Nissan/Chrysler) isn't ready to make trucks in such numbers anymore. Oops! Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic < Nascar consistently kicks Indy car racing in televsion ratings. < Would you HONESTY try to compare attendence or ratings of INDY to NASCAR???????? < HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA <HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And in your little world this makes the CHEVY the best car on the road. Now I *KNOW* how you rated the 3.8 as the BEST ENGINE EVER BUILT because NASCAR sells more tickets. Got news fer ya Gomer..... People are into NASCAR (as they were USAC when it was around) because they don't have cars like the Indy car. They can't buy them. But ever GOOMER in American can buy a Chevy or a Ford. So YEEEEEEEEE HAW ya'all can go on down to Daytona and get your testosterone supplement. The issue is when they have put an Indy car and a NASCAR car on the track together at the same time racing each other... That SHITTY HONDA blows the doors off your Chevys EVERY TIME. You may have higher testosterone, but fewer working brain cells. You think TV viewership makes a car GOOD. Most of you GOOBERS aren't bright enough to realize that the ONLY similarity between that NASCAR car and your CHEVY is that somebody painted the word CHEVROLET on the fender! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > testosterone, but fewer working brain cells. You think TV viewership makes a > car GOOD. You know, the main reason I keep responding to you is that the more you talk, the more stupid you prove yourself to be to the whole world. The downside to that is I show to the whole world that I am also not the brightest light shining. Tell me when an Indy car and a Nascar vehicle run head to head? I tried to tell you before, they are NOT the same thing! And, while I admit that I do have issues with the current state of NASCAR today, based on television ratings and attendence, the stock cars are much more popular than the Indy cars. And BTW, you probably pissed off a whole lot more people with your stupid reply. A lot of folks dont like to be stereo-typed as being ANYTHING, but you have managed to do so with your insults to NASCAR fans. > Most of you GOOBERS aren't bright enough to realize that the ONLY similarity > between that NASCAR car and your CHEVY is that somebody painted the word > CHEVROLET on the fender! You are close to being correct there, but, then again, the Indy cars are similar to absolutely NOTHING that is sold today/ < You know, the main reason I keep responding to you is that the more < you talk, the more stupid you prove yourself to be to the whole world. That's right and the GM 3.8 is the BEST ENGINE ever built in the HISTORY of cars! Okay? Run along little boy! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > And I should give a sh.t? I own a HONDA. Then why do you try to degrade the 3.8 engines by comparing them to engines used in Maseratti's or Lamborghinis? I am not trying to compare a Hemi to these engines, as I dont own one. Actually, I'm not trying to compare the 3.8 to those engines, but everyone else who reads this knows this,except for you. Well, actually, at this point, I WILL try to compare the engines. Are the 3.8's faster?? Of course not! If "fast" is you definition on "best", without any other regards to quality, dependablity, fuel milege, or number of engines sold, or other factors, then I guess you got me there. Now throw out the 3.8's against people who actually use their cars, and the 3.8's do not have to take a back seat to anyone. Once again, as an owner of several of these pieces of "sh.t" (you have called GM products that in previous posts, don't take my word for it, check yourself if you can/t remember what you have posted earlier), I WILL say, once again, that they are a damned good engine. Run well. Good horsepower. 30 mpg or more if driven right. Realiable. Millions sold. Millions sold. A whole heapful sold. Must be a pretty good product. As an owner who drives one ever day, I have to day that is true. > >> So I retort is that WHY the Indy Cars use HONDA engines?? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a.ses in Trans-Am they both QUIT and RAN AWAY. Like the little children they > ARE. Just like they RAN AWAY form Indy cars. AMC hasnt made or run a Javelin in about 35 years. "Course AMC hasnt made anything in a long time. Try to be a little more current here, when knocking domestic brands. > > Because the CHEVY KICKS a.s??? That is NOT anywhere near the same juvenile > > BULLSHIT that has been > > put forth on the GM side here. GM is doing so WELL - which is why it is > > almost bankrupt. Frankly I was comparing FOREIGN cars to American made > > cars. Why keep switching back and forth for the racetrack to corporate HQ when knocking GM??? ALL manufacturers are suffering in the showroom. GM keeps kicking a.s, on an annual basis, at the racetrack. (With apologize to Javelin, of course). > < Take the politics and economics out of the mix, and the American made > < cars are just as good, or better than comperable cars made overseas, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > first geat with 2 spark pug wires unplugged than your 3.8 Pontiac???????? > WITH A BLOWER ON IT! Ok, you win this one. But I wont give up. Tell you what. Bring you Lamorghini to the strip, and I'll bring my GTP and we'll run them, just for fun. Name the time or place. Of course, being that you don't have one, it would be hard to do. Tell you what. Just bring the Honda of your choice, that you own, instead. > < I guess that is PROOF that foreign cars are superior. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > >>> > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > < We tend to stay away from the Toyota group, ourselves. > And I should give a sh.t? I own a HONDA. < Then why do you try to degrade the 3.8 engines by comparing them to < engines used in Maseratti's or Lamborghinis? You know, AS A GROUP, Chevy owners have the BULLSHIT market cornered. You seem incapable of understanding things. It's not that I am trying to DEGRADE the 3.8. It's an OKAY engine with some potential. What I **AM** doing is debunking the BULLSHIT that it is the best engine ever made or even in the top ten best engines. You Chevy people are absolutely FULL OF sh.t! Nobody is putting the engine down. I am putting down your INSANE claims that it is the hottest thing since sliced bread. That is a really ANNOYING trait that Chevy people have. As you guys (you didn't start it, you just joined in) have TRIED to promote the 3.8 as being such a great engine, you go overboard into Alice's wonderland. The idea that it is THE best engine EVER, or even one of the Top 10 is INSANE. I listed MANY engines that from an engineering and durability standpoint are VASTLY better. The Lamborghini, Bugatti, Maseratti, Ferarri, Mercedes are just a few. Just those brands alone push the 3.8 out of the top 20. Then add in American made cars. Packards, Studebakers, Hudsons, Nash and engines like the Continental Read Seal 6. You barely make it into the top 100. It ain't the engine I am denigrating it is your BOORISH ARROGANCE and BULLSHIT that I am denigrating. It's not even a great V-6 by today's standards. Now, I grant you it may be in the top 10 V-6's! Just not near the top. > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > it is the hottest thing since sliced bread. That is a really ANNOYING trait > that Chevy people have. Don't try to backtrack yourself at this point. It degrades you even farther. You started out saying the 3.8 was sh.t. Then, to defend yourself, you tried comparing it to engines that are in 400,000 dollar cars. Real clever on your part. Now, you are saying the 3.8 is "ok". Me, I'll hold the line here. I don't know where the ranking of the 3.8 is compared to other engines built. Or WHO should rank them. Or even if whoever ranks them would be correct. Really don't know what the definition of the word "best" means to everyone. Just based on my experences with them, and knowing that there are millions of them sold, I CAN conclude that: The 3.8 is a DAMNED GOOD ENGINE! BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? Or a Lamborghini to compare it to???? > As you guys (you didn't start it, you just joined in) have TRIED to > promote the 3.8 as being such a great engine, you go overboard into Alice's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > >>> > When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > < Then why do you try to degrade the 3.8 engines by comparing them to > < engines used in Maseratti's or Lamborghinis? > You know, AS A GROUP, Chevy owners have the BULLSHIT market cornered. > You seem incapable of understanding things. It's not that I am trying to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > trait > that Chevy people have. <Don't try to backtrack yourself at this point. It degrades you even farther. < You started out saying the 3.8 was sh.t. MEDIOCRE and sh.t are not the same. < Then, to defend yourself, you tried comparing it to engines that are in 400,000 dollar cars. You REALLY have a BAD reding problem don't you? I listed about 20 different makes of cars that have or had VASTLY better enigne thast your a.s BEATING 3.8! Packards, Mercedes, Hudsons, even Fords ALL of which sold for considerably LESS than $400,000 but wre considerably better powered. < Real clever on your part. But NOT so much for you who STILL sems ton thinkl it is a world beating GREAT motor! < Now, you are saying the 3.8 is "ok". MEDIOCRE! >I don't know where the ranking of the 3.8 is compared to other engines >built. That much is a GIVEN! Your IGNORANCE is PAINFULLY obvious. < Or WHO should rank them. This too is PAINFULLY obvious!!!! Maybe we can start with it being people OLD enough to drive! It helps if they have some strong background as a mechanic or engineer. Not some a.shole who cleans the urinals at the magazine and writes articles in his spare spare times on things he knows nothing about!!! WHEOEVER it was that placed that engine in the top 10 obviously knows NOTHING about cars! He should go back to evaluating vacuum cleaners! < Or even if whoever ranks them would be correct. Again this is obvious. < Really don't know what the definition of the word "best" means to everyone. Well different strokes as they say. But USUALLY to NORMAL folks it means QUALITY or excellence in engineering design. Just based on my experences with them, and knowing that there are < BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? The 4.3 its cousin. < Or a Lamborghini to compare it to???? Owned? No. Driven - YES! > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > < BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? > > The 4.3 its cousin. Nope, the 4.3 is a completely different animal. The 4.3 was based on a Chevy 350; the 3.8 evolved from a 60's Buick design (I want to say that it was actually an evolution of the 215 V-8, but I may be mistaken on that.) Both are actually decent engines, however. BTW it wasn't 80_Kinght that made that claim, it was Ward's. http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_best_engines_th/ I don't necessarily 100% agree with that list; I might have replaced the original Caddy V-8 with a tie between the 1949 Caddy 331 and the 1949 Olds Rocket, being the first two modern high compression OHV V-8s to hit the streets. I'd also include the VW watercooled inline four for simply being reliable, durable, and in continuous production since the early 70's. (yes, you read that right. the 2.0T available today shares a lot of heritage with the 1.6 from the original Scirocco.) But the point remains that the 3.8/3800 really is a decent engine, and even I, not generally a big fan of GM (and more importantly, some of the boneheaded decisions that they have made in the last few decades) can't deny that. nate > < BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? > > The 4.3 its cousin. Nope, the 4.3 is a completely different animal. The 4.3 was based on a Chevy 350; the 3.8 evolved from a 60's Buick design (I want to say that it was actually an evolution of the 215 V-8, but I may be mistaken on that.) Both are actually decent engines, however. I understood they were essentially the same block. BTW it wasn't 80_Kinght that made that claim, it was Ward's. No he QUOTED Wards as his authority. http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_best_engines_th/ I don't necessarily 100% agree with that list; I might have replaced the original Caddy V-8 with a tie between the 1949 Caddy 331 and the 1949 Olds Rocket, being the first two modern high compression OHV V-8s to hit the streets. I'd also include the VW watercooled inline four for simply being reliable, durable, and in continuous production since the early 70's. (yes, you read that right. the 2.0T available today shares a lot of heritage with the 1.6 from the original Scirocco.) But the point remains that the 3.8/3800 really is a decent engine, and even I, not generally a big fan of GM (and more importantly, some of the boneheaded decisions that they have made in the last few decades) can't deny that. Oh I agree but Cadillac had other GREAT engines before than including a V-16. I mentioned the VW 4 cyl engine. The 3800 is MEDIOCRE. Meaning it isn't great and it isn't bad. I think it MAY be in the upper 50%. I will grant that much but EVER the top 10. Not even the top 10 GM engines. > > < BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I understood they were essentially the same block. No, they're not. Similar architecture, but different DNA. > BTW it wasn't 80_Kinght that made that claim, it was Ward's. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Oh I agree but Cadillac had other GREAT engines before than including a > V-16. Eh, I don't know about great; the 331 was really one of the most historically important engines ever built in the US - and it also happened to work well. In fact, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the engineers at Studebaker agreed with me. (park a Stude 232/224/259/289 next to a Caddy 331 and tell me there wasn't a little "concurrent engineering" going on there.) In fact, you could make the argument, from a certain perspective (the "maximum horsepower potential" crowd) the finest American engines ever made were probably the early Caddy, Olds Rocket, Stude, and Rambler V-8s of the 50's, because that was the era when blocks were ludicrously overbuilt because the engineers were expecting to be running 13-14:1 compression ratios on the street before those blocks lived out their life cycles. By the time the SBC was introduced (another groundbreaking engine in its own right) in 1955, it was understood that this was not going to happen, so engineers started taking weight out of the blocks because 1/4" thick cylinder walls weren't an actual requirement for reliable operation in street driven vehicles. > I mentioned the VW 4 cyl engine. The 3800 is MEDIOCRE. Meaning it > isn't great and it isn't bad. I think it MAY be in the upper 50%. I will > grant that much but EVER the top 10. Not even the top 10 GM engines. No, a Cadillac HT4100 or 8-6-4 is mediocre. An original Vega engine is mediocre (actually, you'd think they would have done better with the 4100 after the Vega incident...) A 3800 that runs reliably for years and does what is asked of it can't possibly be mediocre; the worst you can say about it is that it is "adequate." Sure, it doesn't have the watch-like precision of, say, a hand built Aston Martin V-8, but in daily commuter service it serves the exact same purpose, at less cost. Please reserve the use of the word "mediocre" for engines with obvious faults; the 3800 is really pretty decent. nate > Oh I agree but Cadillac had other GREAT engines before than including a > V-16. Eh, I don't know about great; the 331 was really one of the most historically important engines ever built in the US - and it also happened to work well. Engineering it was impressive. In fact, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the engineers at Studebaker agreed with me. (park a Stude 232/224/259/289 next to a Caddy 331 and tell me there wasn't a little "concurrent engineering" going on there.) In fact, you could make the argument, from a certain perspective (the "maximum horsepower potential" crowd) the finest American engines ever made were probably the early Caddy, Olds Rocket, Stude, and Rambler V-8s of the 50's, because that was the era when blocks were ludicrously overbuilt because the engineers were expecting to be running 13-14:1 compression ratios on the street before those blocks lived out their life cycles. By the time the SBC was introduced (another groundbreaking engine in its own right) in 1955, it was understood that this was not going to happen, so engineers started taking weight out of the blocks because 1/4" thick cylinder walls weren't an actual requirement for reliable operation in street driven vehicles. You have named some good power plants. Under rated were the AMC engines. Both the inline 6, 7 main bearing engine, and the 360/390 V-8s. The only FLAW those V-8's had were the valve guides. They could really screw things up. The other thing was you couldn't build them up as if they were a Ford or Chevy. You could get more out of the AMC at 4,000 rpm than the Chevy at 7,000. If you tried to play with a cam that would be great for a Chevy the AMC engine will just keep going BANG on you. A point that Jim Jeffords who raced Javelins in Trans Am until Mark Donahue and company came in and FINALLY started building them AS an AMC engine. After a YEAR of being told ; "YOU CAN"T DO IT THAT WAY, THIS ISN'T A CHEVY" they finally let it sink in. When they did they started wiping ford and Chevy all over the trackls so badly that both QUIT and ran away with a laundry list of excuses. Once Penske figured out the AMC engine nobody could touch it. It had scads of low end torque. The Javelins would sail past the Mustangs in the turns with more than twice the power coming out. The only think the Mustang drives saw was the rear deck lid of the Javelins.It drove them bat sh.t. > I mentioned the VW 4 cyl engine. The 3800 is MEDIOCRE. Meaning it > isn't great and it isn't bad. I think it MAY be in the upper 50%. I will > grant that much but EVER the top 10. Not even the top 10 GM engines. No, a Cadillac HT4100 or 8-6-4 is mediocre. An original Vega engine is mediocre (actually, you'd think they would have done better with the 4100 after the Vega incident...) No they are DREADFUL the 3800 is mediocre. On Oct 10, 12:15 pm, " krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote: > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > < BTW, krp, have you ever owned a GM product with a 3.8??? > > The 4.3 its cousin. Nope, the 4.3 is a completely different animal. The 4.3 was based on a Chevy 350; the 3.8 evolved from a 60's Buick design (I want to say that it was actually an evolution of the 215 V-8, but I may be mistaken on that.) Both are actually decent engines, however. BTW it wasn't 80_Kinght that made that claim, it was Ward's. http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_best_engines_th/ Sherman names some GOOD engines. I even understand his praise for the 3800. BUT he doesn't know sh.t about engines. He leaves off many of the greatest power plants ever built. Some great V-12's and V-16's. The in line 6 and 8 cylinder Packards. The twin H power Hudson. Not even getting to the Pierce Arrows, Deusenbergs, Cords............ Frankly while I think the Honda engines are good, NO WAY they rank in the top 10 either. I think that VW 4 banger belongs somewhere near the top, but probably NOT a top 10. Frankly I really liked the AMC 360/390 engines. It would be like ME claiming they fit in the top 10. They are were great engines, just NOT in the top 10. I'd say they were at least AS GOOD as the 3.8. > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The BEST CARS ever to hit the road. Everything else is sh.t! We know, we > know. How do you like having some of the same sh.t shoved back at your face that we have had to listen to from you guys??? You could also add: "480,000 miles and running strong, no problems, ever. Never rusted. I bought a (your favorite foreign brand inserted here), and the damned thing broke down before it got off the dealer's lot! BTW, you are the one who called GM products "sh.t" You should be ready to face the music from GM owners who post in a GM GROUP who disagree. > BTW, just checked out my 3.8's on more time to make sure they didnt > blow up. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The BEST CARS ever to hit the road. Everything else is sh.t! We know, we > know. < How do you like having some of the same sh.t shoved back at your face < that we have had to listen to from you guys??? Does it dawn on you how STUPID it is to claim that the GM 3.8 is in the top 10 best engines ever made anywhere in the world? Do you get a clanging sound in your ears when you say that? I don't know your source for that, Maybe the National Automotive Blowitoutyourass Journal. That engine is so NOT in the top 10, or the next 10 or the 10 following that as to make that claim suspect of mental illness. >> BTW, just checked out my 3.8's on more time to make sure they didnt >> blow up. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > NOT in the top 10, or the next 10 or the 10 following that as to make that > claim suspect of mental illness. I give up. You can't differentiate between different posters, and you have the mentality of a small child. Be gone, moron. >>> BTW, just checked out my 3.8's on more time to make sure they didnt >>> blow up. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I give up. You can't differentiate between different posters, and you > have the mentality of a small child. Be gone, moron. He supported your bullshit so he gets tarred with the same brush, >> When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing >> >> "Nobody said Toyotas (or fill in your favorite auto manufacture) was >> perfect" > > My Audi is perfect. Pretty damn good cars! But even Audi had some rough patches. But I'd have an Audi LONG LONG LONG LONG before I'd PAY for anything that GM sells. >> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When >> he [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 2008 Honda! BUT if you NEED to make that comparison to feel good > about your New American car, that's okay too. Yet you constantly bash American car citing your exeriences (most likey BS) with American cars built 38 years ago..... Ed >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yet you constantly bash American car citing your exeriences (most likey > BS) with American cars built 38 years ago..... Do you believe that I am the only one bashing American cars? WHY do you think GM is near bankruptcy??? Because there are SO GOOD????? JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!! http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/080702GMBankruptcyFears.aspx General Motors (GM, news, msgs) shares slumped below $10 today -- a level not seen since September 1954 -- after an analyst suggested that slumping sales may force the automaker to seek bankruptcy protection. http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-plan-stokes-bankruptcy-fears-wagoner-under-fire.html GM's decision to offer early retirement to 113,000 workers left many in the nation's capital wondering whether their worst fears might come true - bankruptcy General Motors. "We are watching this very closely," said a Senate Finance Committee staff member. "It is one of our big concerns." Because Chevy is the BEST CAR EVER ON THE ROAD????? http://www.dancewithshadows.com/auto/gm-bankruptcy.asp "Fears of a General Motors (GM) bankruptcy turned more real than ever last week, when GM had to step in to broker talks between Delphi and the United Auto Workers. GM, which is itself teetering on the edge of a bankruptcy precipice, found itself having to bankroll the bankrupt Delphi, the largest auto parts supplier to GM. A labour strike at Delphi would cut off supplies to GM, and trigger a collapse of the crumbling American auto giant." Live in your delusional world that Chevy is the NEST car by far to ever be on rubber! Keep telling yourself that the Japanese and European cars are sh.t by comparison. Keep ignoring the problem and you will soon find there will be as many American built cars as there are American built TV sets. >>>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When >>>> he [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > you will soon find there will be as many American built cars as > there are American built TV sets. I never said Chevys were the NEST (or even Best) car by far. I have not bashed modern foreign cars (I have bashed 30 year old Hondas - they deserve it). Mostly I am countering your claims that foreign cars are far superior to domestic cars. GM has a lot of problems domestically. Mostly related to high labor costs and the wrong mix of products. Toyota and Honda have secure, protected home markets and a government that will make sure they have access to capital. I am more than willing to criticize GM management. They caved in to labor union years ago when there was no substantial foreign competition. This made it unprofitable for them to compete at the low end of the market. In response they essentially conceded this to the foreign makes. Over time the foreign makes started working their way up to the more profitable vehicles, forcing GM and Ford to concentrate of vehicles where the high profit margins allowed them to continue to make large returns. Unfortunately, these are the same large inefficient vehicles that are now out of favor. However, before you criticize GM too much, look at the strategy that Toyota, Nissan, and even Honda have been pursuing for the last decade. Compare Toyota's product mix in 2008 to 1998. See any similarity to the GM strategy? Toyota has several advantages that make them better able to weather the current crisis - heavily protected home market, much lower labor costs, ownership that is not focused on TODAY's stock price, excess small car capacity in Japan that allows them to ship smaller fuel efficient cars to the US immediately, access to capital from Japanese banks, leaner executive structures (by comparison GM is top heavy with over paid management). Ed > excess small car capacity in Japan that allows them to ship smaller > fuel efficient cars to the US immediately, THis is where GM and Ford screwed themselves. They have products they make overseas which would be great to fill the holes they have domestically, but their marketing, labor agreements, and the US regulation they have been involved with for decades keep that from happening instantly. Their marketing plans of cars for X stay in X is probably the biggest barrier as it then shapes the engineering and manufacturing in such a way that it makes it more difficult to sell europe's product in the US, etc. >> Live in your delusional world that Chevy is the BEST car by far to >> ever be on rubber! Keep telling yourself that the Japanese and European >> cars are sh.t by comparison. Keep ignoring the problem and you will soon >> find there will be as many American built cars as there are American >> built TV sets. > I never said Chevys were the NEST (or even Best) car by far. I have not > bashed modern foreign cars (I have bashed 30 year old Hondas - they > deserve it). Mostly I am countering your claims that foreign cars are far > superior to domestic cars. Oh look a SPELL COP!!! Usenet NEEDS more like you. They were 30 years ago compared to American cars 30 years ago, and they are still better with today's Japanese cars compared to Ford and Chevy of today. > GM has a lot of problems domestically. Mostly related to high labor costs > and the wrong mix of products. And PISS POOR QUALITY. < Toyota and Honda have secure, protected home markets and a government that will make sure they have > access to capital. But they are starting to beat us on our home ground. The #1 selling car in the U.S. is a TOYOTA!!!!!!! > I am more than willing to criticize GM management. They caved in to labor > union years ago when there was no substantial foreign competition. This [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Japanese banks, leaner executive structures (by comparison GM is top heavy > with over paid management). Lots of things conspire against the U.S. companies. Including high taxes. BUT none of this touches the basic problem. the cars are BAD. They are bad because you have Harvard MBA's making the design decisions. I you ever want to meet a TOTALLY clueless mother F'r talk to a Harvard MBA. Toyota does better NOT because of protectionism in the TINY Japanese market - but because they kick our a.s ALL OVER THE WORLD - and even IN the U.S. There WAS a day when American cars were the best in the world. Those days are gone and will NEVER come back as long as MBA's run the car companies. American cars will go the way of American made TV sets and audio gear. >> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he >> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >make that comparison to feel good about your New American car, that's okay >too. Further evidence of your ignorance. Nothing wrong with rotary compressors. they just didn't design the system properly. And they didn't bring the civic over here in 1962. More like 72. >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > compressors. they just didn't design the system properly. And they > didn't bring the civic over here in 1962. More like 72. Oh Lord. The rotary compressors they brought over were to save horsepower. They were piss poor. That SOMEBODY SOMEDAY could build a good one was not the point I made. >The Malibu was also chosen by Kelley Blue Book as the "Best redesigned >vehicle for 2008". Kelly Blue Book tests and rates automobiles?!? That's about like the NADA books (all 4-6 of them that look virtually identical) being unbiased.. After all, it's the National Auto Dealers Association... On the same vein, Consumers Reports needs to stick to testing toasters. That they can get right. >>The Malibu was also chosen by Kelley Blue Book as the "Best redesigned >>vehicle for 2008". > Kelly Blue Book tests and rates automobiles?!? Not that I am aware of. But I let that one slide. > On the same vein, Consumers Reports needs to stick to testing > toasters. That they can get right. They have nailed some very BAD cars. But I agree they have allowed a few duds get past them. I can't remember when a car was better than CR said. > Chevrolet excited folks with the prototype concept car the "Volt" and then > the Harvard MBA's at GM redesigned it from a 400 mile range to 40 miles > and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER > buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! You know, you've got a point there. I was discussing the Avalanche with a buddy of mine. He's got a 2003, while I have a 2006. They both had roughly the same options and about the same MSRP ($35,000). In order to "cut costs", GM listened to the bean counters and deleted from the truck in 2004 the rear door marker lights, passenger floor lights, glove box light, hood light and the passenger side cargo bay light. Though I could understand some need for cost cutting, did they actually save anything in this or did they just piss off every 2004> Avalanche buyer? Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic >> Chevrolet excited folks with the prototype concept car the "Volt" and >> then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the truck in 2004 the rear door marker lights, passenger floor lights, > glove box light, hood light and the passenger side cargo bay light. > Though I could understand some need for cost cutting, did they actually > save > anything in this or did they just piss off every 2004> Avalanche buyer? If we can have a "no-sh.t moment" in one board meeting at GM, one of the young execs with a Harvard MBA incredulously asked WHY they had to have 5 lug nuts on the wheels of their cars, wouldn't 2 do the same job? He calculated the savings for GM. SNIP >> In order to "cut costs", GM listened to the bean counters and deleted from >> the truck in 2004 the rear door marker lights, passenger floor lights, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >lug nuts on the wheels of their cars, wouldn't 2 do the same job? He >calculated the savings for GM. Thirty years ago I heard the story "save a nickel - save a dime". Invariably the North Am car makers save a dime. This is why Ford sold cars in 1968 with wee plastic plugs in the front end joints instead of grease nipples that at the factory would have cost 10 for a penny. I spent a lot of time selling and installing nipples in cars back then. Asian car makers do the same thing except they save a nickel and provide those little things that make a car worth buying. Back then those Asian cars were sh.t boxes, but were still miles (kilometers) ahead of the big three. Dealers don't make the cars - they sell them just like Sears sells someone elses product. Don't blame the car because some dealers play games with you. And your right about the bean counters who can't count customers. It's truely incredible how these idiots can f.ck up a nicely designed car with a calculator and a disconnected brain. Henry Ford once said "If everbody bought genuine Ford parts, we could afford to give our cars away." Think about quality here. The general manager of GM once said "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA." Think about arrogance here. From the Chysler board of directors "We don't need people telling us what to build. We'll tell people what they want." Think about head in the sand here. In another post some one pointed out that malibu et al was voted car of the year. Wine me, dine me, get me laid and send me a new car: then read my praises. If Yugo did that for me I would flog their cars far and ahead all others (of course they would have to send me a Lexus). When I look for a car, I get a copy of Consumer Reports for unbiased ratings. Seems rather stupid to take the words of a GaGa eyed little boy for Car & Driver. > SNIP >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > what to build. We'll tell people what they want." Think about head > in the sand here. Dead on. That's why - Nash, Hudson, Kaiser, Frazier, Willys, Studebaker, Packard and so on are no longer with us. It's also why you cannot buy a TV set made in the U.S.A. > Henry Ford once said "If everbody bought genuine Ford parts, we > could > afford to give our cars away." Think about quality here. Can you cite a source for this? I've never heard it attributed to Ford before. I'll bet you are taking it out of context. > The general manager of GM once said "What's good for General Motors > is > good for the USA." Think about arrogance here. Geez, this is a misquote of what was actually said by Charles Wilson. The following account explains it better than I could: "Wilson's nomination sparked a major controversy during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, specifically over his large stockholdings in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at more than $2.5 million, Wilson agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Later this statement was often garbled when quoted, suggesting that Wilson had said simply, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." " Essentially the guy said that the economy of the US and GM were interlinked, which was clearly true. > From the Chysler board of directors "We don't need people telling us > what to build. We'll tell people what they want." Think about > head > in the sand here. Can you cite a source for this quote? Actually of the three "quotes" you have cited, it is the most believable. I've worked with Product Planners in my job and they often feel this way - whether the product is toasters or cars. You almost have to have this sort of arrogance as a product planner. If you don't, you'll just keep building the same old products with minor variations (i.e., the Toyota product game plan sans the Prius). Truly innovative products almost never come from building what people "say" they want. If you do that, you'll just be building what they are used to. I've never been a big Chrysler fan, but I do give them credit for at least trying to be innovative in the 50's, 60's, and even the '70's. A lot of what they tried did not work out because of poor execution, but at least they tried. I give Honda credit in this area as well. > In another post some one pointed out that malibu et al was voted car > of the year. Wine me, dine me, get me laid and send me a new car: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unbiased ratings. Seems rather stupid to take the words of a GaGa > eyed little boy for Car & Driver. Motor Trend awards "Car/Truck/SUV/etc of the Year" awards. These awards have always been awarded based, in part, on who would buy the most advertising in the magazine (this is true whether Ford, Honda, Toyota or GM products win the award). It is among the most fraudulent "car" awards. The Car and Driver Ten best awards are not quite as bad, although I suspect there is some bias based on advertising pages purchased, how well the staff is treated by the various PR departs, and certainly the personal biases of the staff. I think CR opinions generally represent the biases of the editorial staff and are not much influenced by pressure (economic or otherwise) from the manufacturers. This doesn't mean that CR is not biased, rather the CR staff just has different biases. CR has economic motives for "adjusting" their opinions just like everyone else. Theirs motives are just different. Ed >> >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet >> >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER > buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! Could you just go back to the jap car whores group or just go away? Now, I don't mean that in a bad sort of way... >>> >Bill Heard Enterprises Inc., the world's top-selling Chevrolet >>> >dealership group, is closing the doors at its 13 stores today, the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Now, I don't mean that in a bad sort of way... Oh come on, just call them "rice burners" and vent your racist spleen. > <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed > by a Harvard MBA! I can't afford to own such "quality" cars as these that are recalled more often than they are sold. My "junk" has gotten the job done for me for over 30 years. I have no reason to think that my "junk" will not continue to be realible in the future. >I can't afford to own such "quality" cars as these that are recalled >more often than they are sold. One thing that gets me about most of the recalls. They are usually the same sort of recalls from the same companies year in and year out. Especially simple things like ignition switches.. How many millions of cars/trucks have Ford and GM had to recall over ignition switches throughout the last decade and yet they STILL get those recalls. No other maker does. A simple fix? Find out what components and supplier the other guys are using and GET THE SAME ONES! Problem solved, no more 600k car recalls. Do this for the same things that are creeping in every other year. Air bag igniters, the same tranny problems, etc. Find out how the other guys fix the safety issues and do it. It's really that friggen simple. There are times when a totally new design will have unforseen problems, like a whole new suspension or a completely different electronic system. That sort of thing would fall into another category and not apply above. It isn't just domestics that have the problem, but it's the domestics that tend to have exactly the *same* problem every couple months to years. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? >On Sep 24, 5:06 pm, necromancer >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:53:03 -0400, "C. E. White" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the world might otherwise try to use the closing of these dealerships >as proof that Chevys are not selling anymore. I'm not sure who Jim Higgins is, but around here the three oldest Chevy/GM dealers are in trouble of closing and one Ford dealer just did. They went from selling 300-360 cars a month every month to scraping for 60-70 cars each the last 6 months. They have already shut down the used car departments, laid off a lot of employee's and drawn everything back to just the new car showroom. They are trying to avoid taking on new inventory and are doing their best to make money on the used cars (which is about the only way they can these days). I did see another post about how horrible many of the GM/Ford dealerships are run and 'that's why I drive a Honda', yet Honda frequently has the worst rated sales practices of 'this is the price, take it or leave it. In fact, get the hell out and we'll sell it to someone else' of any marque out there. Btw, we do have a Honda and it took going to three Stealerships to find one Dealership. You can't really rate a brand of car for having bad dealers and another brand for having good ones. In this day and time where desperation is the rule for those dealers, it has become an 'anything goes to keep te lights on' frenzy and I can not think of a brand that has been spared. Simply walking into a dealership, especially a large one used to turning 250-350 cars a month and is now down to a 50-70 range, is pretty depressing. The last time I went into a local Ford dealer (dont' worry, it was a Toyota Tacoma in their used line that I wanted to see), there were 3 people fighting, and yes, I mean pushing and shoving, over who's turn it was to 'up' me. I simply bypassed the three, walked in the front doors and no less than 14 sales people were sitting around a large table, ALL of them with the expression of defeat and failure blazened across their faces. It would take little to have imagined tattoos on their foreheads reading "Too Deep in the Bucket" "Wife left" "Bills 6 months behind" "Car was repod" "House is in Foreclosure" etc. It was seriously depressing as an atmosphere and the sheer desperation drove me out of the place before I could even ask about the truck. If I recall it was about 6pm on a bright, clear Wed or Thur afternoon and I was the ONLY customer on the lot. Evidently, I had been the only customer to even drive in within the last 3 hours... I did hear from a few sales reps in marketting and advertising that some of the dealers have literally had them thrown out of the dealerships. Yep, times are screwed. > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:44:06 -0700 (PDT), coachros...@hotmail.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I should go tease the guys atmy old saturn stealership- sounds like fun > I did see another post about how horrible many of the GM/Ford > dealerships are run and 'that's why I drive a Honda', yet Honda [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > goes to keep te lights on' frenzy and I can not think of a brand that > has been spared. I rate the Chevy and Ford dealerships for being crooks AND having lousy cars. There are Honda dealers that are crooks. But at least the car doesn't fall apart before you clear the dealer's driveway. From: " krp" <kr...@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors Chevy is getting its a.s kicked in cars by Toyota, Honda and Nissan. Same with pickups. SUV sales are in the toilet for everyone. Except the small SUV's. Chevy has been building junk since the 60's. Brand loyalty is rapidly evaporating. Their market share is the incredible shrinking woman. Chevrolet excited folks with the prototype concept car the "Volt" and then the Harvard MBA's at GM redesigned it from a 400 mile range to 40 miles and they wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed by a Harvard MBA! krp, you are a stupid idiot. MBA's at Chevy don't do the designing. DESIGN ENGINEERS do the designing. Did the doctor drop you on your head when you were born? Yours was about the dumbest thing I have ever read. What you don't know about cars might catch McCain up to Obama in funding the election. ROFLMAO! Man, are you STOOPID. Is it true your daughter is Brianna Bragg, the porn star? HUBBA HUBBA! Is this web site about you? http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com > From: " krp" <kr...@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car designed > by a Harvard MBA! MBAs are the second most useless degrees after wimmins studies. D. > krp, you are a stupid idiot. MBA's at Chevy don't do the designing. > DESIGN ENGINEERS do the designing. Did the doctor drop you on your head [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > daughter is Brianna Bragg, the porn star? HUBBA HUBBA! Is this web site > about you? http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com Signature======================= Women have spent the last 30 years proving that men have been right for the last 30 centuries. ======================= >> From: " krp" <kr...@verizon.net> >> Subject: Re: Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > D. You probably don't have an advanced degree. If you were applying, you would understand that all MBAs are not the same. If you could get a Wharton MBA, you could pick your salary. Car design is not done by MBAs. Have a nice day anyway. >> krp, you are a stupid idiot. MBA's at Chevy don't do the designing. >> DESIGN ENGINEERS do the designing. Did the doctor drop you on your head [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> daughter is Brianna Bragg, the porn star? HUBBA HUBBA! Is this web site >> about you? http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com >> MBA's at GM redesigned it from a 400 mile range to 40 miles and they >> wonder WHY the queue to order them evaporated overnight. NEVER buy a car >> designed by a Harvard MBA! > > MBAs are the second most useless degrees after > wimmins studies. I study women! Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and statutes and 1% logic DAVID WHACKJOB MOORE > krp, you are a stupid idiot. MBA's at Chevy don't do the designing. > DESIGN ENGINEERS do the designing. Did the doctor drop you on your head > when you were born? Moore who RUNS GM? There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured I wuold take a few minutes to look at a reason or two. The biggest reason is going to be customer perception. After all, perception is reality to the person who is looking. Taking this into account I went to Edmunds.com and put in the same info for 4 each of a lines entry cars and midsize sedans. All info is left basic with the following attributes. All are 2003 models All are listed as silver (base paint) All are automatics I used 50,000 miles (10k a year) I used Average as a modifier though I could have used clean. I figure most cars will be average after 5 years of normal use/wear & tear/cleaning. Keep in mind, average does not reflect the car enthusiast likely to be in here. All prices are Average Dealer Retail. The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close among the brands. IE: the upper level Civic EX (not high performance Si but the more common EX) had an MSRP of about $16k which was similar for the Focus, Corolla SE, and Cavalier when each had similar equipment on it. This was just a rough compilation and it should only be taken as such. I did not add any options save for an automatic transmission. For the sedans I chose the V6 model of each as a representative group. I couldnt' care less about rebates and incentives, only MSRP. If they have to use the rebates and incentives it simply says they are not competitive on the price point they want to play at. ***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test and no, I didn't take the time to dial in every single little option or detail to make it perfect. This is a broad group that is representative of the average for-sale car. Here are the results: Entry level sedan/4-door: Honda Civic EX $9,650 Toyota Corolla SE $8,372 Chevy Cavalier LS $5,510 Ford Focus SE $5,736 Midsize Standard sedans/4door: Honda Accord EX V6 $12,766 Toyota Camry SE V6 $11,046 Chevy Malibu $5,964 Ford Taurus SES $5,964 Odd that the Taurus SES and Malibu were both listed as the same price. In all cases the 'domestics' are roughly half (50-65%) the value of the imports over a given period of 5 years. That would be one of the resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and rebates simply to unbury their previous customers. To make matters worse, they destroyed anyone who recently bought a car when they started doing the Employee Pricing gimmick. What that means is that anyone who bought a car for anything near a normal price is now HAMMERED in the cars they bought and, without a significant amount of cash to bail themselves out, are now stuck with them. Yes, when you kill your own customers it's hard to get repeat business. It's harder, still, to attract new business. > There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford > are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Yes, when you kill your own customers it's hard to get repeat > business. It's harder, still, to attract new business. I have a few problems with your methodology. 1) You are basing the initial costs on MSRP. It has been my experience that I can usually buy domestic for thousands under MSRP, while Toyotas and Honda often actually sell for more than MSRP when you throw in the BS that the dealers add (high doc fees, protectant packages, etc). I'd think this means your estimates for the original cost are off by at least a couple of thousand. 2) I don't get your point about not counting incentives or rebates. If the cars are comparable (same equipment, same general size) why won't I want to buy the cheaper one, assuming similar quality? 3) Then there is the question of what used cars actually sell for. It is my experience that the used car prices you pull off the web are unrealistically high. I usually get stuck selling my sister's used cars and I've never been able to match the prices these sorts of web sites claim. I just sold my sister's 1997 Civic. We started out listing the car at the KBB website price - got no calls. We lower it a couple of hundred, still no calls. After we were down $500, we got some interest, but mostly low ball offers. After a month of trying we finally got interest when we were over a thousand less than the KBB price for a Civic in "fair" condition. We finally sold it, but know where near the price indicated by these sites. 4) What happens after 10 years? I also wonder about your picks as far as equivalence. I looked at the 2003 Ford Taurus compared to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. A 2003 Taurus SES had an MSRP of $21480, guestimate for actual cost - $18,500. For this price you got the automatic, air, power windows, power locks, power drivers seat, am/fm/cd, ABS, V6, cruise control, etc. A 2003 Camry SE V6 had an MSRP of $23265 (almost $2k more) - guestimate for actual cost $23265. For this price you got essentially the same equipment as for the Taurus. However, the car had less interior and cargo room and the safety rating were not as good. A 2003 Honda Accord EX V6 had an MSRP of $25800 - guestimate for actual cost $25800, but at this price it had leather seating surfaces (others were cloth). Other than the leather, the features were similar to the other two. Again, the Accord was smaller than the Taurus but the safety rating were as good. For used car prices (average "trade-in" from NADA): Ford Taurus SES - $5350 Toyota Camry SE V6 - $11,050 Honda Accord EX V6 - $13,000 Actual Depreciation (versus cost, not MSRP)- Ford Taurus SES - $18,500 - $5350 = $13,150 / 71% Toyota Camry SE V6 - $23,265 - $11,050 = $12,215 / 53% Honda Accord EX V6 - $25,800 - $13,000 = $12,800 / 50% The way I look at it, the three cars all cost about the same to own for five years based solely on depreciation (they all depreciated about $2600) per year). The Ford looks much worse on a percentage basis, but that is just because the Toyota and Honda cost a lot more when new. I suspect if I picked a longer period, the Ford would actually look a lot better. And if you are borrowing to buy the car, the Ford probably cost less per year for depreciation plus interest for the five year period. What should really be obvious is how smart it would be to buy a 1 or 2 year old Taurus instead of a new car in this class. You get the benefit of the high initial depreciation and a bigger car. The domestic manufacturers have recognized the pricing problem caused by high fleet sales. Their new products were competing against 1 or 2 year old fleet cars dumped on the market. This depressed prices and demand for otherwise similar new and used cars. All the domestic manufacturers are cutting back on fleet sales. And it is not just domestic manufacturers that offer rebates and incentive. Toyota is currently offering rebates on Camrys. And before the latest run-up in gasoline prices they were actually offering incentives on the Prius. Ed >I have a few problems with your methodology. I like this unbiased methodology. It's simply done, easy to understand and shows logic. The cars chosen were not new but 2003 and your sister didn't buy/sell one. And it's correctly prepared with take it with a grain of salt warnings. You seem to have problems with everything ever written in this news group. What is it that you are so afraid of? Does your mommy know you whine in this news group? You are coming across as a little boy no experience turnip from small town nowhere. Think big and see a bigger picture. P >>I have a few problems with your methodology. >I like this unbiased methodology. It's simply done, easy to >understand and shows logic. The cars chosen were not new but 2003 and >your sister didn't buy/sell one. And it's correctly prepared with >take it with a grain of salt warnings. Thank you for taking it the way in which it was intended. >You seem to have problems with everything ever written in this news >group. What is it that you are so afraid of? Does your mommy know >you whine in this news group? You are coming across as a little boy >no experience turnip from small town nowhere. Think big and see a >bigger picture. I'm not sure about a problem with everything ever written. I can usually see that he has problems with that KRP lad but then again everyone seems to take exception to his lack of consistency. He did respond to me in quite a reasonable tone, didn't set out to bash or anything. He simply stated why he disagreed and backed it up with what he thought was appropriate information. I'll happily respond to that kind of post all day. It's the whining fantasy-types who pull their facts and such from thin-air, make up the data as they go along, and when proven incorrect whine, scream, bash, and name call like a 12 year old. That would be more likely how this KPR guy will respond. >>>I have a few problems with your methodology. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > usually see that he has problems with that KRP lad but then again > everyone seems to take exception to his lack of consistency. No not "everyone" just a couple loudmouth wannabe bullies. > No not "everyone" just a couple loudmouth wannabe bullies. Oh for the love of Pete - just go to your room and whine, please. Bullies - sheese... Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>I have a few problems with your methodology. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > no experience turnip from small town nowhere. Think big and see a > bigger picture. I think he's a rather typical Usenet punk who just likes to argue really absurd sh.t. Such as me referring to the car I was assigned by my employer as "MY CAR" I have NO idea what he thinks I should have called it. BUT he thinks he was scoring big on that issue. >>>I have a few problems with your methodology. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > by my employer as "MY CAR" I have NO idea what he thinks I should > have called it. BUT he thinks he was scoring big on that issue. That is not what I was arguing about. I was trying to understand whether your personal car (the one you were assigned) had the hood fly off six times, or if six different cars in a fleet of thousands had the hood fly off. As I finally understand things you were claiming that the car you drove had the hood flyl off six times, the doors fall off twice, and that it caught on fire six times. This is not credible, so I thought I just did not understand your claim. But you seem to have confirmed several times that you are claiming that this all happened to the one car you drove. I can't imagine anyone believes this is a true story. Ed >>>I have a few problems with your methodology. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > your personal car (the one you were assigned) had the hood fly off six > times, or if six different cars in a fleet of thousands had Guy you were DESPERATELY trying to find something you could TWIST into something you could use. You have been nothing but an annoying little schoolyard prick from the start. Sorry you didn't like me calling your beloved Chevy a piece of sh.t. I can handle you calling my Honda a piece of sh.t without going INSANE like you. I was clear enough, I detailed the problems on MY CAR ( the one ASSIGNED TO ME dsipshit) and said that almost all of the 3500 cars in our FLEET had constant problems of one sort or another. That at any given time almost 30% were in the shop. You seem NOT to understand, and you are in good company with the Execs at GM and Ford who likewise have NO CLUE why they are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with sales down by 35%....., They too can't figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg. BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS CONTENT WITH ASIANS BUYING THEIR OWN CARS, BUT NOT IMPORTING; WHILST OUR GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING ASIAN CARS BE SOLD HERE BUT NOT AMERICAN ABROAD, OUR GOVERNMENT DOESNT GIVE A sh.t ABOUT AMERICAN WORKER, IT'S CALLED: "OUTSOURCING", AND WAIT WE SOON WILL BE FLIPPING BURGERS AT MCDONALDS ALL OF US AND CONSIUDER IT A "GOOD JOB" > BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS CONTENT WITH ASIANS BUYING THEIR OWN CARS, BUT NOT > IMPORTING; WHILST OUR GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING ASIAN CARS BE SOLD HERE BUT > NOT AMERICAN ABROAD, OUR GOVERNMENT DOESNT GIVE A sh.t ABOUT AMERICAN > WORKER, IT'S CALLED: > "OUTSOURCING", AND WAIT WE SOON WILL BE FLIPPING BURGERS AT MCDONALDS ALL > OF US AND CONSIUDER IT A "GOOD JOB" AMEN! Not to mention horribly BAD management. Great workforce. Idiots in charge. >> The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close >> among the brands. >> ***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test > >That would be one of >> the >> resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be >> competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and >> rebates simply to unbury their previous customers. >I have a few problems with your methodology. 1) You are basing the >initial costs on MSRP. It has been my experience that I can usually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >means your estimates for the original cost are off by at least a >couple of thousand. As mentioned in there, I played MSRP against MSRP. Yes, the domestics have been throwing out various incentives, some large, some small for years. Both sides are negotiable and both sides have doc fees, paint crap, pinstripes, etc. that the idiot dealers tack on. Thankfully I have never paid them and never intended to. Many do and they are set by stealerships, not by the company. Would you be able to base the current figures on something like a Nissan GT-R which is trading hands at $30-60k over sticker in 5 years or my personal car which someone paid $10k over sticker to get an early one, put 900 miles on it, and sold it to me for nearly half what they paid for it? Such a far range skews things too much. MSRP to MSRP which is the price manufacturers believe their products *should* be worth seemed the most resonable thing for this fast comparrison. In this attempt I was keeping apples to apples based on Moroney Sticker. As it is, I have bought several cars for significantly less than their average market by being patient and waiting for the perfect opportunity. If you take it that way, it's way to easy to skew the #'s any direction you wish. Also, there is no record that I can find that would show what the incentives/rebates were at that time period. I just picked 5 years as that's what the average loan used to be (now moving from 60 months toward 72 which, frankly, means you can't afford the car). A fair # of cars are traded/sold at around the 50k or 5 year mark so it was a valid reference point. Also, used cars will naturally be all over the map, however, there is some national level consistency that Edmunds uses. Their numbers are based on reported sale prices in the preceeding 15 or 30 days across the nation then broken down by zip code. That, to me, is a fair representation. Each car being different, however, will carry a different price. >2) I don't get your point about not counting >incentives or rebates. If the cars are comparable (same equipment, >same general size) why won't I want to buy the cheaper one, assuming >similar quality? As mentioned above, there was no info that I could readily find on what those incentives and rebates were and which region/dealerships honored them. Most of the time those are used to get people out from under the car they are currently buried in anyhow. Without that info being handy, it wasn't comparable. If they thought their product was worth the lower amount then they should have fixed the price instead of offering rebates. If you think about the primary purpose, rebates and incentives are used to entice the movement of products that are not selling on their own merits or value. If the car was worth $XX then it would have sold at $XX not $XX-Rebate. > 3) Then there is the question of what used cars >actually sell for. It is my experience that the used car prices you >pull off the web are unrealistically high. > I usually get stuck selling >my sister's used cars and I've never been able to match the prices [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >it, but know where near the price indicated by these sites. 4) What >happens after 10 years? KBB is one of the highest and most 'out there' prices you will ever find and in virtually no way does it reflect reality other than to make people think they are saving money. NADA is another culprit. In both KBB and NADA you have to ask WHICH of the 4-6 books they are using as the numbers change dramatically. >I also wonder about your picks as far as equivalence. I looked at the >2003 Ford Taurus compared to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the same equipment as for the Taurus. However, the car had less >interior and cargo room and the safety rating were not as good. I did not (as mentioned) go into great detail about optional extras nor did I care a whit what the crash ratings were. After all, unless you are being crashed into in a science lab, they are often worthless other than feel-good numbers. If they have so much better value in those ratings would it not be better reflected in their resale values? Car to car I tried to keep them as base-model comparable for typical options on a typical car. Hence the SES (probably about 70-80% of Taurus' against the SE Camry which is about 70-80% of the V6 models. That's V6 to V6, model to model, not skewed like the top line Camry to the base line Taurus). >For used car prices (average "trade-in" from NADA): As a general rule you can take pretty much any of the NADA #'s and throw them out the window unless you cite WHICH of the 6 books you are using. Yes. 6 books. If you are really careful around some old school used car dealers you will have fun with them. They are usually yellow, blue, or black. You will have what looks like an identical book save for a changed letter after the date of release. One is for retail, one is for wholesale, one is for trade, one is for loan, etc. It is very common to watch them pull out a book, show you the value of your trade in (generally out of the wholesale, not even the trade book), put the book back in their pocket and when pointing out the car you are looking at (generally a used one) they will pull the same LOOKING book but from the other pocket which shows retail values... The difference can be thousands. Some places still do this sort of crap and it's hillarious catching them at it. Next, take into account NADA and where it came from. National Auto Deales Association. Who do you think owns and supports them? Who's numbers do you think they want to represent? Why do they need 6 books if the values are the same? <grin> >The way I look at it, the three cars all cost about the same to own >for five years based solely on depreciation (they all depreciated >about $2600) per year). The Ford looks much worse on a percentage >basis, but that is just because the Toyota and Honda cost a lot more >when new. If you really want scary take the typical Taurus SES. In our area about 3-4 years ago you could buy a brand new one for a sticker of around $23k, after rebates about $20-21k. Or, you could buy EXACTLY the same car of the SAME YEAR with 4,500 miles, and they had *asking* prices of $10,999 to $11,500 with usually around 20 to choose from. Yep, rental fleet cars. A 50% depreciation in the same year with only 4,500 miles is not exactly a bargain by anyone's book unless they want a significant tax write off. >I suspect if I picked a longer period, the Ford would >actually look a lot better. And if you are borrowing to buy the car, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >this class. You get the benefit of the high initial depreciation and a >bigger car. I disagree on one point but quite agree on another. Overall the depreciation curve on most domestics seems to drop like a rock for 2 years, taper down for about 2 years, drop again for 5 (like a rock at that) then plane out were usually around the 10-12 year cars run within a few hundred of cars much older. The imports still drop throughout but when graphed it usually seems more like a level graph devoid of the dramatic pitfalls. I can't help but wonder if this might be affected by significant rebate years, or really lame things like the Employee Pricing where everyone who bought before is destroyed by depreciation. The point I very much agree on is in buying a very lightly used 1-2 year old car and driving it for a long while. Once in a while this doesn't work (can't find what you want used or in some cases the used ones with 30-50k stay within $2-3k of a new model, case in point the Mazda 3 hatchback). I will usually hunt for such a bargain and have been very lucky in a few. For those who have to have the newest of the new, well, they get to pay the new-factor and it's only new for a day... >The domestic manufacturers have recognized the pricing problem caused >by high fleet sales. Their new products were competing against 1 or 2 >year old fleet cars dumped on the market. This depressed prices and >demand for otherwise similar new and used cars. All the domestic >manufacturers are cutting back on fleet sales. This is also true. Or at least they are trying to. Many of them have started dumping back into fleets to move the cars that are overfilling ltos and causing plant shut-downs. They are graded on a few financial factors some of which include amount of product made. That's an area where I'd get in way over my head real fast as I don't think any one person could master all the intangibles that go into that sort of factoring. >And it is not just domestic manufacturers that offer rebates and >incentive. Toyota is currently offering rebates on Camrys. And before >the latest run-up in gasoline prices they were actually offering >incentives on the Prius. Toyota has recently started offering incentives, so has Honda I believe. If not at the manufacturer level there are a few dealerships around here discounting them like crazy. Frankly, as bad as the car market is right now, everyone is doing anything they can to draw some sort of a revenue stream. We just had one Ford dealer fold, two more have already lost their floor planning, another Chevy dealer who has been around for over 100 years is about to shutter it's doors and there is a 2nd (of 3) that is struggling to keep their floorplan going. The toyota and honda dealers are still going pretty strong but not nearly as strong as they were (down at least 30% or more). Of the Ford and GM dealerships I am thinking of, they have averaged 300-380 cars month in and month out. From a few people who used to be there and a few who still are, they are struggling to reach 60-70 cars a month. That doesn't pay the bills anymore and they are all quite a bit behind. I have to wonder what the long term situation will be for the auto dealers in general, not to mention the manufacturers. If you want to see something depressing, go into one of the big dealerships mid-week, bypass the first two or three people who are fighting to get 'their up' and take a look at the expressions of those inside the dealerships. Panic, bankruptcy, divorce, forclosure, reposession... These words are virtually scarlet letters across their forheads... It's so bad now that even though I'm in the market for another car I'm avoiding these places like the plague! Back on the original part, the methodology was meant to be very basic and if anything your numbers pretty much confirmed the same basic % of losses. It wasn't meant to be scientific. Could be worse.. Could have been based off of a JD Power Survey where everyone is a winner! <gaggggg> >> There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford >> are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured I [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > for thousands under MSRP, while Toyotas and Honda often actually sell for > more than MSRP BULLSHIT!' > There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford > are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured I [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > In all cases the 'domestics' are roughly half (50-65%) the value of > the imports over a given period of 5 years. Why are the American cars worth so much less? Because of ME? Because they are really GOOD cars? Or maybe because even most Americans know sh.t when they smell it? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.