 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Cars / November 2006Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday
Just a bit of difference from the previous Sebring, but mostly positive IMO. Chrysler can actually still do a tasteful styling job! <:) The limited foot room for a long leg big foot front seat passenger has been corrected. It's OK for me now. Still the same small glove compartment. The large Sebring trunk may even be a bit larger with tis new model. I find the trunk space of the small SUVs too small for my use. Generally they are too narrow for my golf clubs to go across the back, with our cases towards the front. The Caliber trunk is far too small for me and the truck like Nitro I looked at is also deficient in trunk capacity, although I consider it too large for me. The desirable 2.7L engine is the same, no variable valve timing yet. About C$27 for the 2.7L car, which has a very good level of equipment. Unfortunately two negatives for my use have been introduced. 1. Several finger size deep channels in the hood. Bad for cleaning off dirt and will be ugly for snow and ice. Obviously designed in California and not audited by someone still left in Detroit, where the winter snow will it tell all. I can just see the snow and ice from those deep channels blowing up on the windshield. You can just see the channels in the hood picture here: http://www.chrysler.com/en/sebring/gallery/ 2. A full sized spare isn't an option, so I assume it won't fit the well. The sales manager got into my discussion with the sales person over this. When I said assuming one dares a long trip on our "service free" highways without a matching spare, "where does one put the flat". His response: "put it in the trunk". Obviously not a very deep thinker. The sales person said just keep my '95 Concord then. He meant it because he already proudly pointed out the oldie Saab of his parked out front. I'm surprised they allowed that! --- Other possibilities in the Sebring category I will look at are Camry, Altima and Fusion. <snip> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? > and this has to do with Nissans because.....? The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements; obvious from my two negatives. Of those other cars I mentioned (Altima is a Nissan isn't it?) a few do appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them. Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely. >> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >appear meet my requirements and I'll look closer at them. >Since I keep a car for up to 10 years, I evaluate them closely. well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at something to last 10 years is beyond me. >>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > something to last 10 years is beyond me. Well my mom's 1987 Chrysler 5th avenue is going on 20 years and has 135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get this, it even has the original exhaust. >>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements; [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get >this, it even has the original exhaust. LOL... I have a 1971 Pinto with 300K on the clock, that looks and runs like new. Nearly all original, but the exhaust was changed once. LOL mike hunt >>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >>> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL... >I have a 1971 Pinto with 300K on the clock, that looks and runs like new. >Nearly all original, but the exhaust was changed once. LOL <snip> Despite their bad press over the rear end pumpkin stud/gas tank fiasco, and Ford's arrogance in taking care of the problem, Pintos weren't any worse than any other US try at a small car, and were lightyears better than GM's Vega. In fact, the head of the NHTSB back in the '70s, during an informal exchange with then-Ford president Lee Iacocca, told him, "It's really too bad what happened with the Pinto. It's really not any worse than any other car." Iacocca had urged King Henry II to recall all Pintos for the "skid fix," and King Henry, who hated the Pinto anyway, refused. >>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements; [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get > this, it even has the original exhaust. Every once in a while they screw up and make one RIGHT! >> Well my mom's 1987 Chrysler 5th avenue is going on 20 years and has >> 135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get >> this, it even has the original exhaust. > >Every once in a while they screw up and make one RIGHT! <snip> M-bodies were THE hardy car of the late Chrysler Corporation. I replaced my OE exhaust on my '86 5th with 2" aluminized behind the converter, which instantly caused highway fuel economy to jump up and the cats to run cooler with lower emissions. These cars weren't "pretty" like the gussied up crap from Roger Smith's GM, but they were far, far more reliable cars. Even in the darkest days and during the Iacocca-led charge toward FWD, Chrysler could still build a rugged, dependable vehicle. That's why a vast majority of municipal fleets and police fleets across the country stuck with the M-body right to the end. When the M-body was retired in '89 and they were forced to go to the "vitamin pill" Caprice from GM, maintenance expenses and failure rates skyrocketed. After one fleet, most never went back to GM for anything, and GM was excluded from many bidding competitions, leaving the Crown Vic the '90s' "cop car" by default. The problem with the Chevy and Dodge patrol cars is the inherent handling and maintenance problems of FWD cars in general, hence the vast preference for the CV even at $2,000 more a copy. Every state and local department for whom we did service eventually went back to the CV after buying FWD patrol cars mike hunt > M-bodies were THE hardy car of the late Chrysler Corporation. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > GM for anything, and GM was excluded from many bidding competitions, > leaving the Crown Vic the '90s' "cop car" by default. > The problem with the Chevy and Dodge patrol cars is the inherent handling > and maintenance problems of FWD cars in general, hence the vast preference > for the CV even at $2,000 more a copy. Every state and local department for > whom we did service eventually went back to the CV after buying FWD patrol > cars Still on the FWD hunt! Too bad you haven't owned a FWD car in significant winter weather. The fact is police often ram into cars they are chasing and RWD is cheaper to repair. So for those who ram into other cars, RWD is obviously better. > Too bad you haven't owned a FWD car in significant winter weather. I have and now will only drive RWD cars in the white stuff. Nothing eats RWD + weight in the trunk. FWD really begins to show its ugliness on hills in the snow. (when you start off, all the wight is shifting to the rear wheels.) >>>>>and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Every once in a while they screw up and make one RIGHT! True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ >True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ <snip> True. Jap cars are no better than US cars now in terms of reliability. I still have a '77 Honda as a "grocery getter" and they DID build better cars than, say, GM did in the '70s and '80s, but that's changed. Later Hondas in the '90s had a whole rash of bad automatic transaxles and engine problems, none of which Honda loyalists seem to admit to existing. It's even worse with Toyota owners...they'll still claim how great their vanilla Camry is, as it's going into the shop "on the hook" yet again. Why are Toyota buyers so "programmed?" Toyota Motor USA outspends GM AND Ford combined on extremely hyped TV and print advertising ....people just believe what they're told. However, like we're seeing with the Republipedo Party, people eventually DO get wise and look elsewhere once they've been screwed long and hard enough. Toyota's trucks are a scam, pure and simple. >>True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >>Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >automatic transaxles and engine problems, none of which Honda >loyalists seem to admit to existing. before I got my 89 olds Ciera (which I still use) I had a new 81 Accord, that was my only import and my only P O S. I had to junk it in 89 due to dealer service could not get the carb to not screw up and foul the plugs every month or so. I've bought all my cars new and keep em till they're only suited for the junk yard Which of the big 3 do you work for? >>>True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >>>Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ <snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've bought all my cars new and keep em till they're only suited for > the junk yard >Which of the big 3 do you work for? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> I've bought all my cars new and keep em till they're only suited for >> the junk yard It's not cuz I work for them, I don't work for any of them, I do many repairs myself, so I keep them in shape and maintenance costs low. The honda was turned over to the deaaler for repair after following the "fuel enrichment" service procedure many times, they could do no better, after 3 times at the dealer and the bills to prove it, the honda did not last as long as any USA made car I had. I am an electronic tech type so the computer sensors and such controls I could deal with for the 89 olds. In reading over the shop manuals for the 05 Sebring I may be at my limit if I need a new computer, I'll need a DRB III > True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than > Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ Chrysler fans ripping on the reliability of Japanese cars are like Detroit Lions fans making fun of the Colts for choking every year in the playoffs. >>True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >>Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ > > Chrysler fans ripping on the reliability of Japanese cars are like Detroit > Lions fans making fun of the Colts for choking every year in the playoffs. How many Japanese cars do YOU have 438,000 miles on and still use them every day? Thought so. >>>True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >>>Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thought so. My old man has two Toyota Landcruisers, both over a half-million miles. Granted, one he keeps the '68 for fun, but the '78 he uses for hauling, snowplowing, etc. If you use a 438,000 mile Chrysler as your daily driver, I'm not sure that's something worth bragging about. Visit any Nissan Maxima forum - not only do those people keep their cars for hundreds of thousands of miles, the interior actually holds up too. >My old man has two Toyota Landcruisers, both over a half-million miles. >Granted, one he keeps the '68 for fun, but the '78 he uses for hauling, >snowplowing, etc. <snip> How many engines in those? That Chevy "Blue Flame" knockoff of Toyota's was VERY famous for frying exhaust valves, as were all mid '70s Toyotas. I know one guy who bought a new '74, forced to since Japan Inc. had dictated that Nissan would stop selling their competing model in the US, while Toyota would stop selling the Crown. First fried exhaust valve was covered under warranty, but not the rest. I used to joke with him that he needed Dzus clips instead of head bolts, that thing was apart so much for valves. It would even fry induction hardened valves on unleaded! Anyone familiar with the Chevy 216/235 knew that Toyota simply stuck drawings of the old "Blue Flame" into a copier to produce that engine...and then they screwed up the head castings! Almost as bad were their OHC straight 6s..the 2M and the 4M...complete dogs in performance AND economy. They were found in the Toyota Crowns, the last one of which ('71) was bought by my grandmother who nursed it along for a number of years. A "luxury" car the size of a Ford Falcon that got 10 MPG...what a friggin' concept! After giving that thing away, she went back to Pontiacs, where she'd been since 1946. >Visit any Nissan Maxima forum - not only do those people keep their cars for >hundreds of thousands of miles, the interior actually holds up too. <snip> False claim. My sister had a Maxima with the first year of the V6. What a piece of crap that thing was! Cheesy interior material that would disintigrate, electric heater and AC controls that would fail regularly, fuel injection system hassles galore, dash electrics (guages, lights, tell-tales) that would fail regularly, steering rack that would develop play due to soft steel, lousy braking system...the list went on and on. I got tired of fixing it for her again and again...I'd seen people do less work keeping a friggin' Fiat running! After 140K, it went to the crusher, as she finally gave up on sinking money into basically a disintegrating car. The previous year used the 2.8L straight 6 right out of the Z car, and would run forever...with the car falling apart around it. The V6, at least in its first year, was a piece of garbage, almost as bad as anything from "It's-A-Shitty." Worn OHCs were a specialty on that engine, even with regular oil service. Sorry, I have personal experience with both the Land Cruisers and the Maximas. Your story doesn't hold water, at least with certain years. Modern Maxima buyers don't appear to be the kinds that maintain cars...they drive them until they quit, and never talk about them again.. > If you use a 438,000 mile Chrysler as your daily driver, I'm not sure that's > something worth bragging about. I'm sure my Concord would do that mileage easily and based on 11 yrs and about 100K of 70% city driving the 3.3L engine would do it without major repair. It's still performs as new, including the pollution test results. Very high mileage is usually from highway driving, much easier on a vehicle than city driving. > Visit any Nissan Maxima forum - not only do those people keep their cars for > hundreds of thousands of miles, the interior actually holds up too. My 11 yr old Concord's interior has surprised me as well. Usually the drivers side is worn from getting in and out, but it looks as new, particularly after a recent professional cleaning. > If you use a 438,000 mile Chrysler as your daily driver, I'm not sure that's > something worth bragging about. Its not, as its actually quite common. Chrysler products last forever. Show me any Chrysler that has made it to 480,000 miles. 1-2, that maybe you've heard of? I know of 30 or 40 Toyotas in my small little neighbourhood on Vancouver Island alone. My '89 Camry LE, 5sp. with the 3.0L has 347,000Kms on it and the air still blows cold. Hasn't needed a quart of oil between changes ever. Drives like a new car! How many Lebarons are out there with that kind of mileage? >>>True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >>>Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thought so. > Show me any Chrysler that has made it to 480,000 miles. 1-2, that > maybe you've heard of? ROTFL! There are that many in my immediate *family*! There are probably 5-6 in the little 30-member Mopar club I belong to. I know of 30 or 40 Toyotas in my small little > neighbourhood on Vancouver Island alone. Trucks maybe. Older ones (ie not T-100s or Tundras). Nothing front-drive, that's for damn sure. >Show me any Chrysler that has made it to 480,000 miles. <snip> How many M-bodies do you want? >How many Lebarons are out there with that kind of mileage? <snip> If it's an M-body Le Baron, probably quite a few. If it's an EEK Le Baron, probably none, but I do know one chap out here with an EEK Le Baron who has 245K on the original everything. Blistered clear coat on the paint was his only real gripe, and after a repaint, it is resplendant as new. >>>>>>and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than >Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/ TRUE, long with my "new" 05 sebring convertable I still keep my 89 olds ciera 210k miles for the weekday work trip, I junked the 86 aries in 05 and got the sebring in it's place American Cars are the BEST >TRUE, >long with my "new" 05 sebring convertable I still keep my 89 olds >ciera 210k miles for the weekday work trip, I junked the 86 aries in >05 and got the sebring in it's place > >American Cars are the BEST uh..yeah..sure. That's why the Motor Trend Car of the Year was...you guess it...a Japanese car yet again... (Toyota Camry). Now...back AWAY from the crack pipe. Trust me, people function just fine without drugs....really. Reality CAN be your friend. Give it a try. >>TRUE, >>long with my "new" 05 sebring convertable I still keep my 89 olds [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Reality CAN be your friend. Give it a try. Hey if Chevy paid Motor trend off the Vega would still be car of the year >>>TRUE, >>>long with my "new" 05 sebring convertable I still keep my 89 olds [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Hey if Chevy paid Motor trend off the Vega would still be car of the >year don't *even* get me started on the American cars I've owned (all new btw, and, if you knew me, would know that I'm religious about maintenance and washing and waxing). For example, my brand new 79 Berlinetta Camaro. The pin stripe running down the middle of the hood was off center by over THREE INCHES! What the heck was the factory tech doing? Was he/she drunk? THEN they painted clear coat over the pin stripe! Also, the car arrived *out of the factory* with a dead battery. Then the starter caught fire. Then the alternator froze up and snapped the belt. Then the front end had to be realigned SIX TIMES the first year because it kept eating tires. The a/c died 2 years later. Compressor prematurely died. 3 years into ownership and the automatic transmission failed. The paint faded less than 18 months after purchase. The entire rear spoiler went from gloss black to almost white. It had a 350 V8 that drank gas like flushing a toilet but had less hp than my old Fairlady 280Z. The drivers side window jumped the track and smashed into a million pieces then burned out the window control switch. The armrest on the drivers side door broke off in my hand. The center console was warped. The t-top leaked like crazy when it rained. The trunk lid was warped. Not just unaligned. *Warped*. The sheet metal was all crooked. The piss poor design of the spark plug wiring melted the plug wires against the exhaust manifold, shorting out the plug wires and killing the car, of course, out in the middle of nowhere. Lemon? Nope..I had two friends that had Camaros...one had a RallySport (79) and one had a Z28 (80) and they too had a long list of nightmarish problems with their cars. Quality control? We don't need no steenkin' quality control! So I sold it three years after I bought it with a whopping 16,000 miles on the odometer. I just couldn't take the pain anymore. Then in 2000, I bought a Dodge Durango. Three months into owning the truck, there was a downpour. Hey downpour = turn on the wipers right? Uh..wrong...turning on the wipers OPENED ALL THE WINDOWS INCLUDING THE SUNROOF! The ONLY way I could get the windows back up was to pull over and turn the truck off and back on..THEN the windows came back up and the wipers turned on. Dealer could never find anything wrong..how come THAT didn't surprise me? Then the paint started to chip..and chip and chip and chip. What did they paint the truck with? Watercolor? The rear a/c was about as worthless as...well you get the idea. Oh, and did I tell you that it got 9mpg? And then the ABS light went off..ended up being an ABS CAB module. $900 to replace. 100 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY. Dodge dealer didn't want to pay for it..recommended I call corporate. So I did. Ok, it's out of warranty, I'm not going to make a big production out of it but I thought it was worth asking if they were willing to work with me. Conversation went like this: "Sir, did you buy an extended warranty?" "Well, no I didn't but..." "Well SIR, I guess you will NEXT time won't you?" <click> "Hello? Hello?" The bitch hung up on me!!! So..we bought a couple of brand spanky new Saturns.... and the nightmare continued. Wind noise, faulty transmission, windshield leaks, a $600 thermostat repair because some moron designed the engine that placed the t-stat *inside* the engine block so the entire top of the engine had to be removed to replace a $12 t-stat. Unbelievable. After that, we lost complete and utter faith in any American (big three) cars and went to Japanese cars. We have three Lexuses and a Sentra. ALL of them have been absolutely bulletproof and drive and look like new. The GS300 has 225,000 miles on it, the ES300 has 85,000 miles and the LS430 has 60,000. The Sentra just clicked over 100,000 miles and the ONLY things we've had to do to any of the cars was routine maintenance and tires. Fit and finish are like brand new and none of them squeak or rattle. IMHO, for every American car you say had been driven and "look like new" at 200,000 miles, I can show you a dozen more of the same model in the junkyard destined to be remade into soup cans. American build quality is better than it was in the past but quite honestly, they still have a VERY long ways to go before they match the fit, finish and quality of foreign automobiles. > Also, the car arrived *out of the factory* with a dead battery. Interesting stories, but I'm sure the dead battery was the result of something electrical being left on during shipping or storage. Twice I've rejected batteries on new cars I was buying. In each case I noticed the battery was dead on my inspection before signing the contract. I made a pen mark on the battery label, requested a new battery only to find the car delivered with the same battery charged up. I just add another (secret) mark and insist on a NEW one. My pre signing inspection also caught a car with the wrong engine. Seems the car docs listed the engine I wanted, but that wasn't the engine in the car. To this day I wonder where I would have stood if I didn't catch that before signing and taking delivery! <:) I've got a '96 Mercury Mystique that Ford used the wrong insulation on all the engine wiring harnesses - after a few years, the insulation literally turns to dust, and the harness is bare wires all over the place. They came out with a campaign that went to 100k miles to replace the harnesses, but they didn't notify the owners (it wasn't a true recall so they didn't *have* to). Mine's over 100k, and they won't budge on the limit. I think we as a society have painted ourselves into a corner with our demands on car manufacturers. We want light weight, air conditioners that last over the expected life of the vehicle without requiring a $1000 repair, good fuel mileage, all kinds of so-called safety features (some are actually useful, some not) that work over the life of the vehicle without requiring astronomically costed repairs (ABS brakes, a.c. evaporators, etc.), 0-60 in 6 seconds or less, low pollution (tons of delicate technical gadgest all over the vehilce), able to accommodate every home appliance and gadget you can think of, everything extremely tightly integrated yet easy to work on, low initial cost, low maintenance cost over a 200k mile span, plastics that last longer than plastics can last, and with nothing that breaks after 6 years that costs more than half the value or the car at that point (a.c. evaps and ABS brakes). Plus the union agreements won't allow making existing production more efficient if it eliminates a worker from the line (specifically GM). I submit that it would be impossible to meet all but 3 or 4 of those requirements in any given car. Between our own personal expectaions and government requirements, we've quaranteed ourselves that we will be unhappy with our cars and the manufacturers - too many compromises have to be made to mee them all - something has to give - and we pay for it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') <snip great commentary> Bill, All excellent points. I think the strongest comment you made was about the influence unions have on the American automobile. (I'll preface this by saying that everything I say is IMHO and should be taken as such). Unions have outlived their usefulness. There was a time when unions not only protected the factory worker but ensured that the auto manufacturer played fair. Over the course of time, again IMHO, the unions have moved away from "the big picture" and instead focused on higher and higher benefits and salaries for their members. In the end, the cost has to be passed on to the consumer. The more expensive the car, the higher quality that's expected. I submit that a large quantity of the American cars sitting in dealer lots should be *at least* 25% less than what's being charged. That way, the cost vs quality and level of expectation would be in alignment. And, as in everything, there's always exceptions to the rule For example, I DO believe that Ford makes a great truck. I've owned two (new) Explorers (a 91 Sport and an 03 XLT) and both trucks were flawless..both in build quality, ride and reliability. The V8 in the XLT was smooth, powerful and economical. The fit and finish were excellent and if I were to buy another SUV someday, I wouldn't hesitate for a second in buying another Explorer. > don't *even* get me started on the American cars I've owned (all new > > Unbelievable. Good, because I don't believe you. Admittedly, an 80s Camaro is about the WORST American car you can pick for build quality, but it would still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me off Japanese cars forever. > After that, we lost complete and utter faith in any American (big > three) cars and went to Japanese cars. We have three Lexuses and > a Sentra. ALL of them have been absolutely bulletproof and drive and > look like new. The GS300 has 225,000 miles on it Congratulations... it still has half the miles my '73 Plymouth Satellite has. Let me know how IT looks when its 33 years old and has 460,000 miles (as if it will ever come CLOSE to either!). >> don't *even* get me started on the American cars I've owned (all new >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the WORST American car you can pick for build quality, but it would >still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me off Japanese cars forever. ..I'm not here to convince you of anything. Nor do I or anyone else have to. Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim of their longevity and looks. But hey, it's the Internet, you can say or be anything you want. Somebody out there might actually believe you so knock yourself out. ;-) >>> don't *even* get me started on the American cars I've owned (all new >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Somebody out there might actually believe you so knock yourself out. > ;-) heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed... new gas tank new exhaust system new brake system new steering gearbox new tranny the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6. > heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > new steering gearbox > new tranny Big 3 cars in the 70s were a piece of SH--! That decade was known as the crap period of NA cars. I avoided them. The rentals I had were more than enough. > the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6. Right on. That great engine, from the 60s just went on and on. Currently Chryslers 3.3L V6 is in the same high reliability category. >> heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That decade was known as the crap period of NA cars. >I avoided them. The rentals I had were more than enough. ...80's era wasn't any better. >> the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6. >Right on. That great engine, from the 60s just went on and on. >Currently Chryslers 3.3L V6 is in the same high reliability category. I think the slant 6 engine was one of the best engines Detroit ever put out. I had an old Dodge Dart with that engine. Everything else around it was falling a part but you couldn't kill that engine with C4. > I think the slant 6 engine was one of the best engines Detroit ever > put out. I had an old Dodge Dart with that engine. Everything else > around it was falling a part but you couldn't kill that engine with > C4. Great engines I have had. In all cases the cars fell apart with the engines still like new Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963 Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945 Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any high tech dependable engines out there? Howard > Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963 > Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945 > Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang > > Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any > high tech dependable engines out there? Lots, but I guess that depends a little on what you mean by "high tech." The Chrysler 3.5 has proven a worthy succesor to the old Slant, both in its original iron-block form and in its 2nd generation aluminum form. I'd call it "mid tech." Its fully computerized EFI, crank-driven oil pump, cross-bolted main bearings, forged crank, shot-peened rods, etc. But its belt-timed, and thats pretty stone-age. The Chrysler 4.7L v8, by all accounts, is following in the slant-6/318/383 tradition too, and it is chain timed. But for whatever reason, its not being used in cars, just trucks and SUVs. I don't really get that, and never have. It would be the ideal mid-range engine in the LX cars instead of over-working the 3.5. The real high-tech one in the Daimler-Chrysler stable is the 5.7L Hemi v8 with MDS (cylinder deactivation), anti-scuff coated short-skirt eutectic pistons, powdered-metal cracked-cap rods, forged crank, cross-bolted mains, dual spark plugs, precision-cast lightweight iron block, great breathing (quasi) Hemi heads, etc. (the list goes on for pages). So far so good, but 2 years does not a reputation make. The Cadillac Northstar v8 (and "shortstar" v6 too) is a truly superb piece of engineering and most of them hold up really well, even if the cars wrapped around it tend to look like angry window air-conditioning units. The Nissan/Infiniti v6 always draws high praise, as it should- its an excellent engine (but comparing it to the noisy, growly, manifold-gasket blowing then camshaft breaking Chevrolet-derived GM v6 family is no comparison). The GM "Gen-III" smallblock v8s are performing well, and the old Buick 3800 still goes on forever, but while the engine management systems are very high-tech those engines themselves are pretty basic. The larger Gen-IIIs, for example, still have the too-short connecting rods of the traditional smallblock Chevy which they evolved from. IMO, the little GM "Ecotec" 4 is very overlooked and underrated- its a nice little tech-loaded engine for generic people-movers and should have a long life. BMW makes a lot of excellent performing high-tech engines, but "reliability" really isn't in their dictionary, unfortunately. Same can be said for the offerings from the Benz side of the DaimlerChrysler house. No one's really mentioned the current crop of Common-Rail diesels, and I'm not overly familiar with the smaller ones. I gather that the VW TDI is an excellent design, but I don't know if its really "bulletproof" or not. Of course the 24-valve Cummins ISB used in the Ram is an engineering tour-de-force (the darn thing is so quiet it doesn't even SOUND like a diesel) but its a bit out of scope since its really a medium truck diesel. It would probably be easier overall to put together a list of "clunker" engines of today, because MOST of them out there are quite good. I'll gladly point out my own manufacturer-of-choice's faults first: the Chrysler 2.7 v6 is questionable, since the early ones were prone to coking their oil and winding up steaming piles(*). So is the (gone and not missed) 2.0/2.4 inline 4 family (headgasket blowers). Throw on the GM Chevy-based v6s (2.8/3.1/3.4/3.5), the two repeat-offender Toyota oil cokers(*), and just a few others. (*) For the record- plenty of Chrysler and Toyota apologists will claim that you can make all 3 of those engines last just fine if you use synthetic oil and change it according to the severe-use schedules. But I think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all from a list of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of neglect. >> Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963 >> Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945 >> Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang >> >> Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any >> high tech dependable engines out there? .... >Lots, but I guess that depends a little on what you mean by "high tech." >(*) For the record- plenty of Chrysler and Toyota apologists will claim >that you can make all 3 of those engines last just fine if you use >synthetic oil and change it according to the severe-use schedules. But I >think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all from a list >of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of neglect. Unfortunately, I think there isn't a *perfect* engine that's ever been made. Some have come close but for the life of me I can't figure out why any manufacturer would go to all the trouble of making a halfway decent engine then wrapping it around a car that falls apart long before the engine does. You'd think by now that ANY manufacturer, either foreign or domestic (as if there's really any distinction anymore), could just take all the "good" bits from various cars and put them all in one package. Hell, I'd even pay more for it if they'd do that. > ...I'll > gladly point out my own manufacturer-of-choice's faults first: the > Chrysler 2.7 v6 is questionable, since the early ones were prone to > coking their oil and winding up steaming piles(*). . . . > (*) For the record- plenty of Chrysler and Toyota apologists will claim > that you can make all 3 of those engines last just fine if you use > synthetic oil and change it according to the severe-use schedules... Or MMO. Good highway driving also enters into the equation. My 2.7 ('99 MY) is running great with 172+k miles on it, having had nothing but MMO and non-synth Castrol and an 80 mile commute 5 days a week. > But I > think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all from a list > of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of neglect. Agreed. As you've acknowledged elsewhere, there were apparent mods that were done to the 2.7 that have put it into the 'reliable' category (else we'd be hearing horror stories all over the internet of problems on DC's later lines that use it as the base engine). On your comments about timing chains vs. belts, it's unfortunate that, with modern ultra-integration, most of the engines with chains have the water pump in the cam drive train, which would be the limiting factor on reliability and the service interval (not pretty when a water pump locks up on an interference engine). You've seen my rants in the past on what this country needs is good affordable production engines with gear-driven cams (some R&D would be needed, but I'm convinced it could be done if so motivated - should be no more of a technical challenge than the development of an affordable CV joint for consumer vehicles before that was accomplished). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> But I think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all >> from a list of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > we'd be hearing horror stories all over the internet of problems on DC's > later lines that use it as the base engine). And it seems that most of the mods weren't so much to the ENGINE itself as to the PCV system. But then there are the cam chain tensioner problems too. Or was that precipitated by cooked oil? I forget- I just put the 2.7 down on the "not in my lifetime" list when I started hearing about all those things :-/ > On your comments about timing chains vs. belts, it's unfortunate that, > with modern ultra-integration, most of the engines with chains have the > water pump in the cam drive train, which would be the limiting factor on > reliability and the service interval (not pretty when a water pump locks > up on an interference engine). True, but no not really any dumber than turning the CAMS on an interference engine with a belt, and some carmakers seem to do that on ALL their engines. That was one of my big gripes about the Chrysler 2.0/2.4- they were Chrysler's first rubber-band timed interference engines, and I was bitterly disappointed that they would even go there. OK, so they did a study that showed a failing belt usually jumps a few teeth before failing altogether, so it sets the "service engine soon" light when a cam slip is detected. Oh oh, and let's not forget the valve stems designed to collapse rather than punch holes in the pistons. Big steaming fat deal- that is NOT a solution. I think Chrysler's passenger car engine design group went through some sort of big shakeup in the mid 90s, because that's when all the questionable decisions happened and all the good new engines (4.7, 3.7, 5.7) started coming out of the Jeep/Truck Engineering group. > You've seen my rants in the past on what > this country needs is good affordable production engines with > gear-driven cams The old Ford 300 straight-six had a gear driven cam. That was another slant-six like engine, by the way. The downside was that the cam gear was a "fiber" gear (phenolic, or something similar) and it would eventually shed teeth when it got old, worn, and brittle. There've been a number of engines like that over the years. I think the best decision was to just run steel chains on steel gears and tell the consumer to live with the little bit of timing chain chatter, ala the Magnum versions of the 318 and 360. Those never seem to fail. > And it seems that most of the mods weren't so much to the ENGINE itself > as to the PCV system. But then there are the cam chain tensioner > problems too. Or was that precipitated by cooked oil?... I think so. They increased the oil pump flow rate and did something to inprove the drainback from top of engine. No doubt some other things that we don't know about. >> You've seen my rants in the past on what this country needs is good >> affordable production engines with gear-driven cams [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > live with the little bit of timing chain chatter, ala the Magnum > versions of the 318 and 360. Those never seem to fail. I could live with that, *if* the water pump is not integrated into the cam drive. The problem is too much emphasis on tight integration, light weight, and compactness with the result of otherwise simple repairs costing 2 to 4 times what they would be and cars therefore ending up in the junk yard far earlier than necessary. How damaging to the environment is that when it is in large part the result of measures taken to supposedly "save the environment" in the first place? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I could live with that, *if* the water pump is not integrated into the > cam drive. Not even close. Heck, I don't know if the 300 ever even got a serpentine belt system before they pulled the plug. Last I looked, the water pump and fan were still driven by a good old V-belt. The problem is too much emphasis on tight integration, light > weight, and compactness with the result of otherwise simple repairs > costing 2 to 4 times what they would be and cars therefore ending up in > the junk yard far earlier than necessary. How damaging to the > environment is that when it is in large part the result of measures > taken to supposedly "save the environment" in the first place? Bill, Bill, Bill. You just don't Understand (tm). Its good for the environment to get rid of all old cars and replace them with new ones every few years. Haven't you seen how all these new cars have SULEV and PZEV stickers in the windows? Your old one doesn't have THOSE, so crushing it down must be good! Besides, disposable cars make for more jobs. ;-) > Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had > with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim > of their longevity and looks. Why? What makes your claims "plausible," other than the fact that you said them? Nothing. > But hey, it's the Internet, you can say or be anything you want. And you do... >> Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had >> with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim >> of their longevity and looks. > >Why? What makes your claims "plausible," other than the fact that you >said them? Nothing. ..the fact that you claim to have American cars that have hundreds of thousands of miles on them and look and run like new. THAT isn't plausible. Can happen? Sure, but don't come off trying to make the claim that ALL American cars do this. Because they don't. If you want to ignore every single consumer review by just about every reputable car review source on the planet. Go for it. It's doesn't make your credibility any more plausible. >> But hey, it's the Internet, you can say or be anything you want. > >And you do... Actually, I'm just confusing you with facts. MY experience with American cars not only goes back to '79, but spans several vehicles as recent as 2003. YOUR experience, by your own admission, is isolated to '79, Which, again by your own admission is dated by 27 years. If your entire argument hinges on information that's nearly 30 years old..well, I think your credibility pretty much speaks for itself. I'm not the one that's implausible here junior. >>> Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had >>>with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thousands of miles on them and look and run like new. THAT isn't > plausible. Sorry to disappoint you, but everything I said is a fact. > Can happen? Sure, but don't come off trying to make the > claim that ALL American cars do this. Because they don't. I think we can all agree on that. So just don't YOU come off trying to make it sound like all Japanese cars are better than American cars, because we all know THAT isn't true either. The fact of the matter is that today, there's virtually no difference in reliability or longevity between ANY car brands. Any broad-based quality advantage that the Japanese had only existed between maybe 1978 and 1990. Some brands and models are more amenable to long life because they're easier to service (German cars, non-GM American cars). Some have a bit fewer "nuiscance" failures with non-drivetrain components (Toyota). Some have high rates of very specific failures (early 2000s Chevrolet V6 intake manifolds, a couple of sludge-prone Toyota oiling systems, the early Chrysler 2.7L v6 oiling system). But major differences? Forget it. Cars have evolved to be mostly transportation appliances. And that is my beef with most of the Japanese brands. I'd rather have chronic diahrrhea than be subjected to the boredom of driving a Camry or Altima every day. Yes, the same can be said of a Taurus, but at least SOME American and German cars are interesting. About the only Japanese car that I'd give a second look right now is the RX-8. In contrast, there are more American and German models that I find interesting every day. The new Mustang, the Charger, the Magnum, the forthcoming Challenger and next generation Camaro, Viper, Corvette C6, the BMW 5-series, etc. etc. etc. >So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah> Actually there *is* a difference in American and Japanese cars when it comes to reliability and since you don't have a CLUE to what the hell you're talking about since YOUR knowledge is nearly 30 years old, I doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about. Here's a (free) clue for you junior, go and read the reviews about American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise! They suck. The ONLY place they *don't* suck is resale value if you're a buyer. Want to know why? Because used American cars *suck* worse than *new* American cars. And if you're dumb enough to try and compare a Camry's driving characteristics to that of a Viper, your dumber than even your posts belie. >>So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah> > > Actually there *is* a difference in American and Japanese cars when it > comes to reliability and since you don't have a CLUE to what the hell > you're talking about since YOUR knowledge is nearly 30 years old, Interesting math that says 2006-1993=30. But then its no less than I'd expect. You're clearly a True Believer. Have a good fantasy. I'll keep enjoying good CARS. I > doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about. > > Here's a (free) clue for you junior, I suspect I'm about 20 years older than you, but it if makes you feel big to call me "junior," then please do. > go and read the reviews about > American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise! > They suck. The only thing that sucks is the vacuum between your ears. I'd be perfectly willing to have a civilized discussion, but when you wade into a Chrysler enthusiast (Chrysler has those you know, not just mindless drones like the ones who drive Camrys) group slinging this garbage, you get what you deserve. >>>So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Interesting math that says 2006-1993=30. But then its no less than I'd >expect. ..I see your reading comprehension skills are about as good as the rest of garbage you spew "junior". Re-read. I'm typing this real slow since it's obvious you can't read too fast. >You're clearly a True Believer. Have a good fantasy. I'll keep enjoying >good CARS. ...uh..you misspelled "crack". > I >> doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I suspect I'm about 20 years older than you, but it if makes you feel >big to call me "junior," then please do. ..I doubt that. But then again, you haven't said anything of any value so far... >> go and read the reviews about >> American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >drones like the ones who drive Camrys) group slinging this garbage, you >get what you deserve. ..OOoooOOOO...snappy comeback. Did you get your keyboard all wet and sticky when you typed that? Junior? Did ya? Come on..you can tell us. I could care less about Chrysler "enthusiasts" or what they have to say and if you have hide behind them to shore you up, knock yourself out...really... > Some brands and models are more amenable to long > life because they're easier to service (German cars, Hopefully the VW is easy to service because it's well known they've needed lots of it in the last several years. Must be a lot of low IQ types wrapped up in this part of USENET. How would a post on a POS Chrysler product to a Nissan product discussion group be anything other than a TROLL? Yet you folks continue to respond and argue with this idiot lowering yourselves to his level. Are any of you respondents older than twenty? Butch >> Some brands and models are more amenable to long >> life because they're easier to service (German cars, > Hopefully the VW is easy to service because it's well known they've > needed lots of it in the last several years. > Must be a lot of low IQ types wrapped up in this part of USENET. We are highly insulted that you think we are of low IQ. > ...Are any of you respondents older than twenty? Twenty what? :) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Must be a lot of low IQ types wrapped up in this part of USENET. > > We are highly insulted that you think we are of low IQ. I don't know... we're being called "low IQ" by someone who drives the product of company that got *BETTER* when Renault took it over... :-p >> don't *even* get me started on the American cars I've owned (all new >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > has. Let me know how IT looks when its 33 years old and has 460,000 > miles (as if it will ever come CLOSE to either!). wow... that averages out to a whopping 14k miles a year! i guess that IS good for an american car! > but it would still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me > off Japanese cars forever. ===== Oh my, if you've been put off to Toyotas forever, you are missing out on the best cars available. Try using your noodle. Don't let the 79 Mazda experience deprive you of the best cars you can buy. >> but it would still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me > > off Japanese cars forever. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Don't let the 79 Mazda experience deprive you of the best cars > you can buy. ===== Oops, Steve (NOT SoCalMike) wrote that about being put off to Toyotas forever because of the Mazda. Steve, use your noodle! [chuckle >>> but it would still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oops, Steve (NOT SoCalMike) wrote that about being put off to Toyotas > forever because of the Mazda. Steve, use your noodle! [chuckle When I was a kid, myself and a cousin were running thru my grnadmother's house when she stopped us and told us we'd better stop running in the house or we might fall and break our noodles. I was shocked, and yet a little amused, that my otherwise prim and proper grandmother would use such a crude expression. It was years later that I realized that "noodle" meant "head". Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > For example, my brand new 79 Berlinetta Camaro. Problem #1 - You bought a Chevy. > Quality control? We don't need no steenkin' quality control! You bought a Chevy. > Then in 2000, I bought a Dodge Durango. Problem #2 - you bouught a Dodge > So..we bought a couple of brand spanky new Saturns.... You bought another GM? > After that, we lost complete and utter faith in any American (big > three) cars and went to Japanese cars. We have three Lexuses and You bought cars from the most unreliable of the Big 3.... > You bought cars from the most unreliable of the Big 3.... How can you say that as Ford wasn't mentioned! <:) >> You bought cars from the most unreliable of the Big 3.... > > How can you say that as Ford wasn't mentioned! <:) That was the point - it's pretty much a given that GM and Mopar build junk. Ford is about at the Nissan level of quality. >>> You bought cars from the most unreliable of the Big 3.... >> >> How can you say that as Ford wasn't mentioned! <:) > > That was the point - it's pretty much a given that GM and Mopar build > junk. Ford is about at the Nissan level of quality. Tell that to my '96 Mercury with the wrong engine wiring insulation (literally turns to dust), and they held a silent recall and now refuse to do anything (past the limits they set). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Tell that to my '96 Mercury with the wrong engine wiring insulation > (literally turns to dust), and they held a silent recall and now refuse > to do anything (past the limits they set). Guess you and the many Toyota owners that have sludged engines even with 3k oil change reciepts that were told to take a hike have something in common then! :) > >>>TRUE, > >>>long with my "new" 05 sebring convertable I still keep my 89 olds [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > over THREE INCHES! What the heck was the factory tech doing? Was > he/she drunk? Possibly. To be fair, the late 1970s were not the best time for quality control. I remember vaguely (I was quite young then) seeing misaligned pin strips on the sides, door panels, etc... not sure if any were off by three inches, but it would not surprise me. > THEN they painted clear coat over the pin stripe! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then the front end had to be realigned SIX TIMES the first year > because it kept eating tires. SNIP Quality control on US cars has come some ways since then.... DEP > Hey if Chevy paid Motor trend off the Vega would still be car of the > year Won't bother me. The Car of the years are always something I'm not interested in. >>American Cars are the BEST > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now...back AWAY from the crack pipe. Trust me, people function > just fine without drugs....really. Not if they're condemned to driving a Camry every day. Talk about cause for heavy medication.... >>>American Cars are the BEST >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Not if they're condemned to driving a Camry every day. Talk about cause >for heavy medication.... the new Camry's come in several different engine configurations. Personally, it's not my kind of car either. I thought the issue was reliability, not boredom. OTOH, a bit of unreliability makes for excitement... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Not if they're condemned to driving a Camry every day. Talk about cause > for heavy medication.... >>>>>>>and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > American Cars are the BEST Then, howcome I have a 1985 Corolla GTS in the yard with 258,000 miles that still starts on the first turn of the key, and just gave away an '85 Celica in excellent running condition that still starts on the first turn of the key, but my '92 Grand Voyager sounds like it's going to BLOW UP any minute now, and it only has 127,000 miles on it? Because: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html To start with, we motor room mechanics were a little disappointed when [the engineer] came down with the first prototype parts for the 3.3. We were expecting an overhead cam-high tech-high performance engine, and were shocked when we pulled out a bag containing push rods! Somebody had done a survey of potential customers and decided that the customer was too dumb to know what was under the hood anyway, so the "cost effective" approach was taken. Ford's Taurus engines and GM's 3.8 used pushrods, so why not us? We were paying a high premium for Mitsubishi's 3.0L V6, and Trenton Engine had room for another assembly line, so it was a no brainer as far as the necessity and where it would be built. We had some problems early on with valve stem finish which was quickly fixed, a bigger problem was thrust bearing failure. We were getting some engines coming in to tear down with incredible end play, you didn't need a dial micrometer to know which ones were bad. Our manager grabbed me and 3 other mechanics and we spent the next 2 days at Detroit Metro Airport checking crank end play on Snappy rental cars with the 3.3 engine. Most were okay, but an occasional one would produce not 3 or 4 or 5 thousandths end play, but 100+ ! The blame was aimed at the transmission, but we immediately went to a wider thrust face. Has not been a problem since. [Note that the 3.3 was produced for many years, and these early problems affected only a relatively small number of engines.] I had a real battle with an engineer in regards to the head bolt washers and the ensuing CYI approach he took to, well, cover his behind. The 2.2 and 3.3 used the same head bolts and washers; a decision was made to widen the head bolt washer to increase the clamping area. Only problem with this was that on the 3.3, the wider washer could hit the valve spring that is next to the oil feed cam tower. And they did. [One engineer] told me that noisy tappet replacement was our fifth biggest warranty item on the 3.3, but when they got the suspect parts back to engineering, they weren't noisy. I fought to get a service bulletin written on this, to check for interference before doing a costly cam/tappet replacement, but another engineer [tried to cover up with] the claim that it "helped attenuate" engine noise. On a visit to Trenton Engine, I found the line worker who assembled the heads and asked him why he didn't notify engineering about this. "I did, but was told not to worry about it," he replied... Another problem is oil leaks. Anytime you bolt aluminum to iron, the gasket in between is compromised, due to the expansion differences between the two metals. This is particularly evident in the chain case module gasket. The gasket moves over time and creates a gap just above the oil pan rail, and boy does it make a mess. Lower intake gaskets leak in the corners. An upgraded gasket was designed with longer, tapered rubber ends that was supposed to end the use of RTV, but RTV will always be a necessity on that application. Other notes Jim Gathmann wrote: The early years of the 3.3 did have problems with the rockers and the oiling system. I did not know when it was corrected... Apparently they fixed this by the second year of production. "91redbaron" wrote: The 3.5 had a rather interesting intake setup. There were two separate intake manifolds for the left and right side cylinders with their own throttle-bodies (interesting throttle linkage and cabling there). So in a way it was like two in-line 3-cylinders that were joined at the crank. Dan Rose wrote: "I am a Dodge Dynasty owner who has one of the first 3.3 engines ever to come off the line. The pulleys on the (at least the early) 3.3 are made out of plastic, they break easily. The power steering pulley I have replaced 4 times in the past 4 years." Yup, American cars are the BEST, ok... >> American Cars are the BEST > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > turn of the key, but my '92 Grand Voyager sounds like it's going to BLOW > UP any minute now, and it only has 127,000 miles on it? Because real engines do make a little more noise than wound-up rubber bands :-p > Then, howcome I have a 1985 Corolla GTS in the yard with 258,000 miles > that still starts on the first turn of the key, and just gave away an > '85 Celica in excellent running condition that still starts on the first > turn of the key, but my '92 Grand Voyager sounds like it's going to BLOW > UP any minute now, and it only has 127,000 miles on it? How come I had an 86 Mustang 2.3 with 175k (original engine and trans) that would do the same. Too bad the body was shot and it wouldn't pass emissions anymore as I had ripped everything but the converter off as a poor college student. Amazing what good maintenance and 3k oil changes will do. Or the '87 Escort with 102k that I traded in on a 97 Cobra that was still running perfectly? Buy good cars and take care of them. > Then, howcome I have a 1985 Corolla GTS in the yard with 258,000 miles > that still starts on the first turn of the key, and just gave away an > '85 Celica in excellent running condition that still starts on the first > turn of the key, but my '92 Grand Voyager sounds like it's going to BLOW > UP any minute now, and it only has 127,000 miles on it? How come I had an 86 Mustang 2.3 with 175k (original engine and trans) that would do the same. Too bad the body was shot and it wouldn't pass emissions anymore as I had ripped everything but the converter off as a poor college student. Amazing what good maintenance and 3k oil changes will do. Or the '87 Escort with 102k that I traded in on a 97 Cobra that was still running perfectly? Buy good cars and take care of them. >>>> and this has to do with Nissans because.....? >>> The new Sebring doesn't quite meet my requirements; obvious from my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 135,000 miles. Really not alot of miles in the past few years but get > this, it even has the original exhaust. So does my mother-in-laws 1987 Aries. > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > something to last 10 years is beyond me. My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.  SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > > something to last 10 years is beyond me. > > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. Mine is a 1940 Chrysler Royal! Signature"What do you mean there's no movie?" >> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >> something to last 10 years is beyond me. > >My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. Is it as nice as this one? http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm SignatureScott in Florida >>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >>> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension. IMHO of course. :-) >>>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >>>> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension. <snip> Last of the "oversized" Chryslers; the M-bodies would start taking over shortly after this. The one in the ad, being from Pennsylvania, is probably a rust bucket made to look nice, unless it's been garageded 99% of the time. Many senior Chyslers of that era suffered from the same rust problems that the horrible F-bodies did, making good ones quite rare. Seen yesterday in VG shape: 1978 Aspen 4 door sedan, which has all the signs of where the M-body really came from! I took a look at the car with the proud owner's permission...not a speck of rust anywhere, thanks to use of road salt being illegal out here. The rusting problems of that area where not the cause of the vehicle manufactures. The rust we IN the 'new;' BOF steels. US steel was the first American steel company to make steel in Basic Oxygen Furnaces rather than in decades old open hearth furnaces. Companies that bough from USS, like GM where the first to rust through no matter what was done to prevent rust by the vehicle manufacture. Bethlehem Steel converted to BOFs later. Chrysler and Ford used BSCO steel and the rust showed up in their cars later. It took a few years for the steel companies to discover the problem an correct it.. The open heath furnace used fuel oil to melt the iron with the components to make steel. The BOF did not use any fuel, instead blew oxygen into a mix of iron and scraps steel, to burn off the impurities as the 'fuel' The fix was to simply blow the O2 a bit longer. mike hunt >>>>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >>>>> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > car with the proud owner's permission...not a speck of rust anywhere, > thanks to use of road salt being illegal out here. > yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension. > > IMHO of course. :-) So far, your opinions seem to be about as humble as they are well-informed. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >> yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension. >> >> IMHO of course. :-) > >So far, your opinions seem to be about as humble as they are >well-informed. and your credentials are as questionable as your logic. I'm sorry that *my* opinion isn't acceptable to you. Not that I or anyone else for that matter care one bit who you think or claim to me. You see, some of us are confident enough in ourselves that we don't need to prop ourselves up with titles. > >> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > >> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm No, I can only drool with envy! Well, that and get it into the body shop for a long-promised vacation.... SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >> Is it as nice as this one? >> >> http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/5/4/49198054.htm > >No, I can only drool with envy! Well, that and get it into the body >shop for a long-promised vacation.... <snip> Assembly quality on late '70s Chrysler products was dismal at best, but once all the goofs were fixed, they were pretty darned good, reliable cars. Once the word got out about Chrysler's thrown together quality, though, Iacocca had one helluva job turning it around, even though build quality improved greatly for them during the '80s. One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, where screwed up management and labor coalesced with bad plant design to make building a well made car nigh impossible. Once they were closed or retrofitted and new, modern assembly plants came online, things turned around in short order, but the public, typically, was (and still is) very slow on the uptake. The biggest problem the US automakers had and still have are incredible "hype" ad campaigns by the Japs. Their cars aren't any better...they've just programmed buyers into thinking so. Toyota and Honda are the two biggest and most successful users of this hype. Sure, they build good cars, but an objective view of MTBF of their product isn't any better than Big 3 cars now, and hasn't been for many years. Not only that, but a majority of automotive failures are due to one reason...owner ignorance and refusal to do routine maintenance. One caveat to DC, though...they're "over-krauting" their US models with overly complex and expensive to maintain systems, something the average US car buyer won't tolerate over time in a lower priced car. "German engineering" is great...if you can afford to maintain it. Ask any honest Mercedes or VW owner about that issue. Simplicity and smart design is what made Chrysler Corporation products what they were back in the glory days....rugged, run forever on nominal maintenance, and with better performance than the other guys without being overly complex. > One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, > like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, Highland Park Assembly?? >> One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, >> like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, > >Highland Park Assembly?? <snip> Well, HQ was there, but there was a "something Park" assembly plant somewhere near Detroit that was a chronic problem...now I forgot! Iacocca wrote about it in one of his books. > >> One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, > >> like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > somewhere near Detroit that was a chronic problem...now I forgot! > Iacocca wrote about it in one of his books. Highland Park Machining attached to the main complex but it closed, or was due to close, by the late 60s...now I forgot! >>>One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, >>>like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > somewhere near Detroit that was a chronic problem...now I forgot! > Iacocca wrote about it in one of his books. Iacocca wrote his books over 20 years ago. Welcome to the new century, Desert Troll. > >>>One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants, > >>>like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Iacocca wrote his books over 20 years ago. Welcome to the new century, > Desert Troll. Well, in context: "Assembly quality on late '70s Chrysler products was dismal at best, but once all the goofs were fixed, they were pretty darned good, " ...so spake DeserTBob >Iacocca wrote his books over 20 years ago. Welcome to the new century, >Desert Troll. <snip. That's when all this happened....Texasissy. >> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >> something to last 10 years is beyond me. > >My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the ones I've seen are, figuratively speaking, total crap. They handle like a boat, rattle like dump truck, drink gas like flushing a toilet and the fit and finish would make a blind man blush. And don't even get me started on the paint. No thanks, older American cars are like older Vettes. Great to look at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and on the road. >I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite >honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and >on the road. Yeah, I used to be a Mustang enthusiast, and have owned several of the 65-70 'Stangs. But once a got my first "modern" car (an '88 CRX Si), I just could not go back to those beautiful-looking, shitty handling, oil-stinking, primitive, cars. You obviously have not owned one of the newer Mustangs, if that is what you believe. My '07 V8 GT convertible is a dream and it cost $6,000 less than a V6 Solara ;) mike hunt >>I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite >>honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I just could not go back to those beautiful-looking, shitty handling, > oil-stinking, primitive, cars. It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and run like new for that reason. ;) mike hunt >>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >>> something to last 10 years is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and > on the road. >It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a >vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >mike hunt I religiously had and have my preventive maintenance done on every vehicle I've ever owned. All synthetic oil changed every 3k. Rotate tires every 5k. Tranny, coolant, brake fluids all done on schedule. I keep records of all my maintenance. I literally wash and wax my cars at *least* once a month. The Dodge Durango (99, purchased new), had nothing but problems. Electrical, a/c, transmission and paint to name just a few. The Saturns we owned were equally as dismal in quality. The 79 Camaro I owned (also new), *had parts falling off it as they handed me the keys*. The paint faded (black) to nearly white in less than a year and the sunroof leaked like crazy. >It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a >vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental >convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD >Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan >all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and >run like new for that reason. ;) <snip> Amen! Preventive and routine maintenance is essential. I have an '86 Fifth Avenue that still turns heads and clueless people think it's from the '90s. The '41 Lincoln had one, HUGE headache...that awful V12. All the faults of the flattie V8, plus higher internal friction and lousy oiling. And no modern safety features (all cars, not just American). DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite > honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and > on the road. I have been on all sides of the automotive business, designer, retailer and fleet maintenance company owner for over a 55 year period. I have never owned a domestic, or foreign, car that was ever problematic and I have owned several dozens of them. ALL manufactures are building good quality, long lasting, dependable vehicle today. One should pick the model that best suits their needs and buy the one that best suits ones budget, period. One would expect that a guy with a Ph.D. in anything, let alone his field, would be smart enough to use an allies and not post all of his personal information in a NG filled with kooks. LOL mike hunt >> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at >> something to last 10 years is beyond me. > > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. (EDITED, out of compassion, Mike) > Joseph J. PXXX, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (555) A46- XXXX > Department of XXXXX FAX -- (555) A46-XXXX > XZXXXXX State University http://www.cXs.nemsu.edu/~pxxxx >I have been on all sides of the automotive business, designer, retailer and >fleet maintenance company owner for over a 55 year period. I have never [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >mike hunt I respectfully disagree. American automobiles consistently fall behind foreign (especially Japanese) automakers in reliability and customer satisfaction. For example, here's absolutely no way I believe a Chrysler 300M is as reliable as a Lexus. JD Powers, Consumers Report and Edmunds feel the same way. And, having owned my fair share of both foreign and domestic automobiles myself, I had significantly more problems with American built cars from the big three than any of my Japanese cars. > And, having owned my fair share of both foreign and domestic > automobiles myself, I had significantly more problems with American > built cars from the big three than any of my Japanese cars. To each his own. I've taken one American car beyond 400,000 miles, 3 others well beyond 200,000 miles. I've *NEVER* had a Japanese vehicle that didn't have some massive organ failure at around 150,000. They were reliable (and exciting) as a Timex watch for the first 100k, but after that the built-in obsolescence took over. They are made for a pre-determined life, no more. Great if you replace cars every 2 years, lousy if you keep them for 10+ like I do. No thanks, I'd rather have a car built to be serviced and run as long as I choose to run it. >> And, having owned my fair share of both foreign and domestic >> automobiles myself, I had significantly more problems with American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >others well beyond 200,000 miles. I've *NEVER* had a Japanese vehicle >that didn't have some massive organ failure at around 150,000. <snip> True. >They were >reliable (and exciting) as a Timex watch for the first 100k, but after >that the built-in obsolescence took over. They are made for a >pre-determined life, no more. Great if you replace cars every 2 years, >lousy if you keep them for 10+ like I do. <snip> My old CVCC Honda exemplfies this. Although it's almost 30 years old, it's low in mileage, just over 100K. At 150K, the cylinder head and exhaust manifold, regardless of age and maintenance, will simply start to crumble and fall apart. I put 150K on a '75 Civic CVCC, and saw this happen 20 years ago...there was simply nothing left to fix anymore! Since those early days, Hondas and Toyotas have become even more "disposable." If you own one for more than about five years or 125K miles, you've got a huge maintenance/repair headache on your hands. They are simply designed and built to fill the US market of idiots who don't maintain anything, and are meant to be crushed at end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car past 50K miles. It's the law. To this day, the Japs do NOT understand why anyone would want to drive any car or truck more than three years or about 80K miles. It's usually not long after that when Jap cars start to become maintenance hogs, usually with little, piddly things first, then progressing to major component failure. Prior to that, even with no maintenance, they run fine. Now, the Koreans are taking this even further with their Hyundais and Kias. Remember the Hyundai Excel? That car was built to literally fall apart after about 40K miles, and most did, which gave Hyundai Heavy Industries a black eye on the US market for over a decade. They're back again, but their cars aren't that much better..they're just slicker. I challenge anyone to run a Hyundai V6 for more than 120K miles without major failure. Another Asiain self-destructing vehicle: anything by Mitsubishi, one reason DC dumped them. There WAS one Japanese car that WOULD run virtually forever...the earlier Nissans with Ajin Precision engines. Those mills would outlast any car engine worldwide. I saw a 280ZX engine go almost 500K before it finally spun a rod bearing. I don't think contemporary Nissans, however, are built to this same standard. The problem with Nissans was that the engine and tranny were fabulous...would run forever...but the rest of the car would decay and fall apart around them. >No thanks, I'd rather have a car built to be serviced and run as long as >I choose to run it. <snip> That's why I have an M-body. I talked to a Le Baron owner who has 430K on his, and got 300K on the original 318. He's STILL on the original A-904! NO Jap can can do that...period...end of story. For that matter, no GM can do that anymore, either. I believe something capital intensive for the average Joe, like a new car, should last as long as the buyer wants it to do so, given proper maintenance, handling and care. Goofy styling trends and gee-gaws like navigation systems (I can read a map before I leave, thanks very much) are simply toys to attract people with more credit than sense. Japanese cars will simply not pass the long term durability test, no matter how many trips to Jiify Lube their bonehead owners treat them to. They are designed to fall apart at a pre-determined time and mileage. >end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car >past 50K miles. It's the law. Source? Just curious. Alan >>end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car >>past 50K miles. It's the law. > > Source? Just curious. > > Alan I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection (English web site: http://www.navi.go.jp/english/index.html outlines a pretty thorough inspection process but there is no mention anywhere of a limit on vehicle mileage. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K >miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection >(English web site: http://www.navi.go.jp/english/index.html outlines a >pretty thorough inspection process but there is no mention anywhere of a >limit on vehicle mileage. <snip> Gee, I guess the LA Times was wrong! Perhaps they CAN be driven longer than 50K, but inspections get purposely onerous? I know the Times had a big writeup about this back when Chrysler was down in the pits. > >I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K > >miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Times had a big writeup about this back when Chrysler was down in the > pits. Right -- last I heard, there was no law forbidding driving a vehicle past 50K miles. It's just that the refurbishing required makes it completely impractical. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >> >I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K >> >miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >past 50K miles. It's just that the refurbishing required makes it >completely impractical. utter BS. Do you just make this up as you go along? >>I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K >>miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Times had a big writeup about this back when Chrysler was down in the >pits. gee..a newspaper that's got their facts *wrong*? Whoda thunk? Having lived in Japan, that pure and utter BS. There's no limit in the miles you can have on your car. It just has to pass their safety inspection like any other car. > I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K > miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection > (English web site: http://www.navi.go.jp/english/index.html outlines a > pretty thorough inspection process but there is no mention anywhere of a > limit on vehicle mileage. Yes, but these inspections end up being so expensive that the Japanese trade in for new. The law was written as such to keep their auto industry going. >> I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 >> K miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > trade in for new. The law was written as such to keep their auto industry > going. I believe that the actual cost of the inspection works out to about $250 if an owner takes the car in for an inspection him or herself. The inspection process is very thorough, and every safety and emissions component is visually inspected and measured or tested. That cost will jump to about $2,000 if the owner pays a garage to take the car through the inspection process and the garage tells the owner to fix a long laundry list of things before taking it through the inspection. The reason people change cars so often in Japan is consumer preference. The average Japanese salaryman spends as little money as possible on housing and furnishings and will spend money on cars, vacations, and designer clothing and accessories for his wife. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 >>> K miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >process and the garage tells the owner to fix a long laundry list of things >before taking it through the inspection. Right - but I can read between the lines on this one, and no matter the country Bureaucrats is Bureaucrats... What the Government wants, the Government gets. QED. The DIY car owner doesn't have to pay a mechanic and shop to do the pre-inspection work and take the car in for them - but s/he is still going to have to buy the parts and supplies needed to tear down the brakes, axles, trans, suspension, and other items that the inspection calls for ahead of time, to make sure he passes on the first try. Or the owner can do the obvious items and take the car through cold, and get Failed several times as they pick up on other "worn items" that he has to repair or tear down for a closer inspection and bring the car back later - only to fail the test again for something else... Or you "scrap" the car (to be shipped overseas either as parts or whole and sold as used) and buy a new one from a domestic Japanese manufacturer, which supports the Home Country economy. Again, QED. You can easily adjust the inspection rules and criteria to get the desired results. You want to up the percentage failed, you tighten the regs a bit. Go ask Marv Specter where he gets a lot of his used FJ and truck parts. Same thing for the engines at K. Watanabe Co., Et Al. They come in from Japanese breakers by the container load, most of them surprisingly grease free with lots of yellow paint dots on every bolt head, nut and thread from the inspection process - and when the owner decides to stop paying for the inspections, it's scrap to them. >The reason people change cars so often in Japan is consumer preference. The >average Japanese salaryman spends as little money as possible on housing and >furnishings and will spend money on cars, vacations, and designer clothing >and accessories for his wife. Can't argue with that one as I don't know the culture in such minutiae. But as an external observer it makes sense. >>>> I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past >>>> 50 [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > bolt head, nut and thread from the inspection process - and when the > owner decides to stop paying for the inspections, it's scrap to them. Your observations make a lot of sense... >>The reason people change cars so often in Japan is consumer preference. >>The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Can't argue with that one as I don't know the culture in such > minutiae. But as an external observer it makes sense. Japanese women spend money on designer clothing and purses, and men spend their money on new cars and golf while their family of 4 live in a 500 SF condo called "mansions." SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>The reason people change cars so often in Japan is consumer preference. The >>average Japanese salaryman spends as little money as possible on housing and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can't argue with that one as I don't know the culture in such >minutiae. But as an external observer it makes sense. <snip> This was true when Japan, Inc, was crushing the US economy, but it ain't so anymore. Japan's mired in a prolonged recession, and housing prices continued to climb, thus cutting disposable income even more. Most Japanese in urban areas live in VERY tiny accommodations, true, but that's necessity driven by real estate prices that still make US prices in major metropolitain areas look dirt cheap in comparison. When the disposable income starts to dry up, the first thing that the Japanese salesman will do is drive his Lexus another year longer. >Yes, but these inspections end up being so expensive that the Japanese >trade in for new. The law was written as such to keep their auto >industry going. <snip> Exactly the point of the LA Times article. DESERTBOB (not its real name) is a troll. It regularly frequents at least twenty news groups, including many rabid/sex/racist/liberal idiot/wannabee mechanic groups. Normally, it starts off with reasonable, even witty lines, but rapidly drifts into lies, abuse and stupidity. Check its details at Google Groups at this URL: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=Ohn2FRMAAADKWt-YFW4KG3QbhQogR22 2h-kUg4S0n7nbF1Te82ZIng&hl=en See it's pathetic picture and myspace page at this URL- as it searches for companionship at age 50- looks like a quart of oil for the car in that hair... http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=30321125 It had 2 Ebay usernames, both banned due to abuse, auction interference, and harassment- they were VOXPOPPER and XCALIBER44- see them here- search history of VOXPOPPER to see how it left (8) negative feedbacks for a seller, for items that cost only a penny each ! http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=voxpopper http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=xcaliber44 It is a sad creature, deserving of pity, not anger. Any direct response simply feeds it, but it will go away if you ignore it. >>end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car >>past 50K miles. It's the law. > >Source? Just curious. <snip> Try the Japanese government. That law's been in effect for years at the behest of Japan, Inc. > >end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car > >past 50K miles. It's the law. Nope, not a fact. In Japan it's the car age that gets you. Keeping a car on the road oner 5 yrs gets expensive, too expensive over 10 yrs. Inspections can cost a lot. Some facts here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_(Car_Inspection) >> >end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car >> >past 50K miles. It's the law. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Some facts here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_(Car_Inspection) <snip> I stand corrected, and now that you clarify, I think this is what the LA Time was alluding to...forced retirement of cars before they were worn out, which started the "used engine/transmission" business for Japanese models in Southern Calfornia, which was a booming business started by the Watanabe Bros. in the mid-'70s. Low mileage cars would be scrapped in Japan, and the engines/transaxles sent over here to put in US high milers. I believe that's still a big biz here, but since California smog requirements are much tougher than those in Japan, most Japanese used power trains won't pass smog tests here anymore. Wasn't an issue in the '70s and '80s, though, as most of the smog gear was "bolt-on.". >>> In article <8mspj25t2o2fe61rntl0m85uulevb4ic0r@4ax.com>, >>> desertb@rglobal.net [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Wasn't an issue in the '70s and '80s, though, as most of the smog gear > was "bolt-on.". Low mileage cars are usually not scrapped in Japan. More often, they are shipped to other Asian countries with a demand for used cars. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >I have been on all sides of the automotive business, designer, retailer and >fleet maintenance company owner for over a 55 year period. I have never >owned a domestic, or foreign, car that was ever problematic and I have owned >several dozens of them. <snip> Obviously you never owned a Chevy Vega! Even the much-maligned Edsel was a reliable car...once the sheet metal bugs were worked out, a problem that also affected the '57 Ford and Merc models. One thing the Edsel gave the Ford world that was a huge plus...the FE engine, probably once of the most durable and versatile V8s Ford ever made. Not a huge champ in efficiency like the '49-'62 Barr-Cole engine for Cadillac, and not at all light, like the cheaply designed Ed Cole engine for Chevrolet Division, it would run for 300K miles with normal maintenance before having its heads off for any reason. The only engines I can compare this one to in terms of ruggedness were the A and LA, as well as the slant 6 engines from Chrysler, which I'm convinced will run forever with good maintenance. B and RB engines....eh. > One would expect that a guy with a Ph.D. in anything, let alone his field, > would be smart enough to use an allies and not post all of his personal > information in a NG filled with kooks. LOL My information has been available in too many places on the net for far, far too long for me to start worrying about it now. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes, old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or air bag. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [....] > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. > [....] > > > > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport. > I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes, > old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or > air bag. So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >> [....] >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list >you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate. did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums? >>> [....] >>> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums? Front disc brakes, rear drums. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums? Of course they had front disk/rear drum. I think 1969 was the last year for drums -- it certainly was within a year or so of then. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >>>[....] >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums? Chrysler stopped making ANYTHING with front drums in the early 70s. MOST of their vehicles had front disks back to around 68/69, some earlier than that. So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as they are now? Internal cabin design to minimise injury? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list > you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate. > [...] > > > > So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list > > you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate. > So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as they > are now? Internal cabin design to minimise injury? There were huge improvements made in the 1960s, with only incremental changes since then. By the early 1970s cars had side-impact beams, collapsible steering columns, and, yes, designed-in crumple zones along with active safety features like vastly improved brakes compared to a decade earlier.. Is it *as* advanced as a modern car? No. The modern car is able to get comparable levels of survivability with less material. But the difference is probably less than the difference between a modern small car and an SUV. To put it another way, my crumple zone isn't as well designed as a Honda's, but I've got a *lot* of crumple zone. Going over to the NHTSA's crash test data site, I compared a 1979 Newport (that was the earliest I could find; the 1979 was a redesign going to Chrysler's old mid-size platform, so it's a smaller car than my 1978) against a 2006 Civic. The only directly comparable data was head injury; for the Newport, head injury indexes in left and right front seats were 897 and 106. They tested two Civics and only gave information for left side front and rear for both. For one, left side front head injury criterion was 237 and rear was 751; for the other, the numbers were 356 and 355. So the Honda scores better, but they are close enough to have substantial overlap -- my passenger is in better shape than the Honda's driver. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=181 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/queryvehicle.aspx Incidentally, results for a 1979 Honda Civic showed head injury criteria of 2029 and 2095 for front left and right seats. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=94 SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer I accept your point about much of the progress having been made by the early seventies, though I wonder if all the features actually helped (side-impact beams are good only if designed correctly) but, anyway, the NHTSA's facts speak for themselves. It is interesting that you should take a Japanese car for comparison. When I was following European crash test results in the nineties (usually conducted by consortia of leading motoring organisations and trade mags or newspapers) the Japanese cars performed poorly compared with European models, and some European models performed markedly worse than others. 'American' cars (i.e. those made in the USA as opposed to made by American-owned companies) were never tested because there were too few of them being sold. However, within a product line there would usually be improvements so that, e.g. I would expect a Chysler of today (or of 5 years ago) to perform significantly better than one of 20 years ago in safety and handling. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> [...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > criteria of 2029 and 2095 for front left and right seats. > http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=94 >It is interesting that you should take a Japanese car for comparison. When >I was following European crash test results in the nineties (usually >conducted by consortia of leading motoring organisations and trade mags or >newspapers) the Japanese cars performed poorly compared with European >models, and some European models performed markedly worse than others. <snip> True. >However, within a product line there would usually be improvements so that, >e.g. I would expect a Chysler of today (or of 5 years ago) to perform >significantly better than one of 20 years ago in safety and handling. <snip> Dubious. The jury's still out about the efficacy of frontal "air bags" in frontal collisions. All other mandated safety gear on 20 year old Chrysler products had been in place since the '70s...collapsing steering columns, padded surfaces, blunt control stalks, and so on. Of course, lap and shoulder belts had been mandated for some time. One area where all US cars were weak at that time, especially certain Chryslers, was in side impact protection. Earlier M-bodies, then favored in police fleets nationwide, were notorious for side impact intrusion into the passenger cabin. >I accept your point about much of the progress having been made by the >early seventies, though I wonder if all the features actually helped >(side-impact beams are good only if designed correctly) but, anyway, the >NHTSA's facts speak for themselves. Side impact beams have been a required feature for a long time, at least back to the early 1970's. I doubt if they would still be required equipment all these years if they were not effective. Side air bags are an optional additional layer of protection in newer cars. > It is interesting that you should take a Japanese car for comparison. > When I was following European crash test results in the nineties (usually [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DAS Yes, a vehicle produced today is likely to be safer than one produced 20 years ago, however, the mere fact that a car is 20 years old does not necessarily make it unsafe. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > It is interesting that you should take a Japanese car for comparison. When > I was following European crash test results in the nineties (usually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > American-owned companies) were never tested because there were too few of > them being sold. Hmm... I actually wasn't trying to either pick on the Japanese nor find the worst car I could for comparison. I just keep hearing Honda held up as a pinnacle of engineering that they seemed the obvious comparison. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as they > are now? Not quite, but close. And back then, there was a lot more cabin (and non-cabin) space to work with, so things could move much further before causing harm. Internal cabin design to minimise injury? Yes, very much so. By federal law, dating back to the mid 60s. Padded dash, knee bolsters, side-impact beams, collaspible steering wheels/columns, etc. All date to the mid/late 60s. >I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes, >old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or air bag. <snip> Schmetterling has outed himself as someone who posts about things he knows nothing about. "Safety equipment" had progressively been mandated on US cars since 1966. The '78 Newport has: 1.) Front disc brakes 2.) 6 passenger lap belts, front 2 passenger shoulder belts. 3.) Far beefier construction than the later M-body version that came shortly thereafter. The Ms had one safety flaw that was serious: lack of side impact protection. Earlier C-bodies didn't have a problem with that. > I can't understand why anyone would do that. Why NOT do that? My daily driver is a '66 Dodge Polara Old-fashioned brakes, Nonsense. His Newport has disk brakes, and my Polara has been converted to disk brakes (from a '73 Newport, incidentally). My Polara stops as fast as my wife's 1993 car with ABS does. > old-fashioned and dangerous construction, Absurd. Side-impact beams became mandatory in the early 70s, as did "5 mph bumpers." Collapsible steering columns and crumple zones date back to the mid 60s. Plus we have mass on our side. > probably no seat belts or air bag. ROTFL! You really don't know much about older American cars, do you? Seat belts became mandatory in the 60s, shoulder belts in '68 (optional prior to that). And not having a bomb aimed at your chest is a *good* thing. >> I can't understand why anyone would do that. > >Why NOT do that? My daily driver is a '66 Dodge Polara <snip> I just got a 'fridge magnet from rockauto.com with a hot looking '66 Polara on it...yours? > Old-fashioned brakes, > >Nonsense. His Newport has disk brakes, and my Polara has been converted >to disk brakes (from a '73 Newport, incidentally). My Polara stops as >fast as my wife's 1993 car with ABS does. <snip> "Bad brakes" went away on Chrysler products when they finally dumped Lockheed brakes in 1957. >> old-fashioned and dangerous construction, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Seat belts became mandatory in the 60s, shoulder belts in '68 (optional >prior to that). And not having a bomb aimed at your chest is a *good* thing. Benefits of air bags, except in the fastest frontal crashes, are dubious, at best. Iacocca was dead set against them for years, not because he was anti-safety (he was pro-safety, going back to the '56 Ford) but the data showed they were simply ineffective and caused injury at medium and low speed collisions that wouldn't have happened with properly worn lap/shoulder belts. What they ARE effective at is lining the pockets of certain second tier auto industry suppliers. The move to air bags was due to many states, notably in the South, which refused, until strongarmed by Washington, to enact mandatory seat belt laws. California has had one for many years, and the rightards went berserk over it..."it's my right to drive unsafely," blah blah blah, just like the biker bums and their helmets. They were beaten into submission...like they will be again on Nov. 7. There's only so much reasoning you can do with a flock of paranoid delusionals addicted to bad talk shows before you have to just whump them a good one! From what I have read in NGs and elsewhere there seems an important difference between US and RoW airbags. In RoW, so I gather, they are smaller as they are 'only' supplementary to seat belts (hence SRS --supplementary restraint system -- logo on the cover). For them to be fully effective seat belts must be worn. When were inertial-reel seat belts introduced in the US? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >>> I can't understand why anyone would do that. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > addicted to bad talk shows before you have to just whump them a good > one! >From what I have read in NGs and elsewhere there seems an important >difference between US and RoW airbags. In RoW, so I gather, they are >smaller as they are 'only' supplementary to seat belts (hence >SRS --supplementary restraint system -- logo on the cover). For them to be >fully effective seat belts must be worn. <snip> It's the same in the US. "Airbags" are an SRS, and can only be used with proper lap/shoulder belts in use to be effective. >When were inertial-reel seat belts introduced in the US? <snip> Early 1970s. Prior to that, they were adjustable belts with rectractile storage from 1966 on. Prior to that, from the '50s, optional seat belts had no retractile storage. My dad had optional seat belts on his '62 Cadillac, but they DID have retractors, as they did on various Pontiacs I've seen from that era. I have seen 1956 Ford Thunderbirds with factory seat belts as well, probably an option mandated by Iacocca, who probably back then, was the only believer in seat belts at Ford. King Henry II was dead set against them, as "they cost money." Another seat belt believer was John De Lorean, who promoted their availability in Pontiacs after he got there after leaving Chrysler circa 1956. > >From what I have read in NGs and elsewhere there seems an important > >difference between US and RoW airbags. In RoW, so I gather, they are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's the same in the US. "Airbags" are an SRS, and can only be used > with proper lap/shoulder belts in use to be effective. Yeah, but the original pitch for airbags was that they were supposed to protect idiots who didn't use a seatbelt, with the result that they were powerful enough to stop that idiot from going into the windshield. At some point between mandating them and them actually going into production there was a "discovery" that they were supplemental-only; it was several years before the requirements were modified to reflect that fact. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > From what I have read in NGs and elsewhere there seems an important > difference between US and RoW airbags. Definitely true of EARLY (circa 1993) US airbombs. The later ones are closer to ROW, but the regulations over here are not quite sane on many safety devices. > For them to be > fully effective seat belts must be worn. That's 100% true of ALL airbombs- because they don't really do much at all, the seatbelt is the real safety device. > When were inertial-reel seat belts introduced in the US? 1974. Up to 1973, shoulder belts were fixed length and had to be cinched down just like lap belts did. When used correctly, a fixed belt is safer than inertia-reel type belts, but most people left them loose and floppy so they could reach the radio controls easily :-p 1974 was also the year of the disastrous seatbelt-starter interlock fiasco. Both front-seat passengers HAD to be buckled for the car to start. The system was so trouble-prone and cars would refuse to start that the law was amended and the systems were allowed to be bypassed within the first half of the model year! There was an override button under the hood that gave you 30 seconds to get back in and start the car, but consumers were NOT pleased with having to use it all the time. > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > something to last 10 years is beyond me. Why anyone would rule out a domestic car "just because" its domestic is beyond me. I have yet to have a domestic car fail to reach 200,000 miles (my wife's 93 is at 240,000 and my 73 is at 438,000 among others). > well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at > something to last 10 years is beyond me. You have illustrated how out of date you are or perhaps you are an import dealer trolling around. Whatever an import for many cars is now? Some of the other responses here are also as emotional and biased. I've had import cars, starting with VW Beatles in '58, then GM's compact Chev II which just had to get larger. Back to Chrysler in '79 with the Horizon. My reason for going imports then to Chrysler was to get reasonable fuel consumption and a car that handled well. The huge sloppy handling NA cars of the 50s to 70s aren't my cup of tea. As has been said almost all cars from well established companies are built to very good quality levels today. Exceptions may be newer manufacturers. Limited service for some imports can also be a problem, where dealer service is needed and it is only available in large cities. However they all have their occasional problems, the surprising ones I've heard of are VW's poor quality of the last several years and troubles with some Mercedes models. These manufacturers have even admitted their problems and of course said "all is now OK". IMO the key to buying a new car is waiting a few years on significant new mechanical designs and one year for a new body design. As for NA cars not lasting 10 years, here are my more recent NA car experiences. (Note that we travel in severe weather conditions going to our ski hills, with significant road salt and grit. Our cars are not babied and are used daily.) -Had my Chrysler '86 Le'Baron for 10 years, still in very good condition. Body rust free, engine and auto trans first class. Only experienced one unexpected repair. -Wife had her '87 Daytona for 14 yrs, still in very good condition. No unexpected repairs, body, engine and trans first class. Still had the original exhaust, the first year of stainless exhaust. - My current '95 Concord. 11.5 yrs and counting. Body rust free, looks like new, engine and trans performing as new. Only one unexpected repair, the air conditioner, on which Chrysler extended the warranty to 7 yrs. Cost me nothing to repair. This Concord has lasted unbelievably well and since my needs have changed slightly I'd trade it if I could find something better for me. I've never kept a car so long, even a used one. > <snip> > > and this has to do with Nissans because.....? Friends don't let friends drive Asian cars. ;-) > Just a bit of difference from the previous Sebring, but mostly positive > IMO. Chrysler can actually still do a tasteful styling job! <:) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Other possibilities in the Sebring category I will look at are Camry, > Altima and Fusion. UGH! Some people's taste is all in their mouths... Must be a Chrysler salesman trying to drum up some sales for an ugly car! The 96-02 Coupe was one of the best looking cars ever made. This thing is an abbhoration! I think you need to call the "waaaaambulance" > Just a bit of difference from the previous Sebring, but mostly positive > IMO. Chrysler can actually still do a tasteful styling job! <:) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Other possibilities in the Sebring category I will look at are Camry, > Altima and Fusion. >I think you need to call the "waaaaambulance" ..besides, anyone who is actually seriously looking at a Chrysler, let alone a Sebring with it's horrible repair history and then thinks it's comparable to a Japanese car like a Camry is stump stupid. I, personally, will never, ever own a Chrysler product ever again. > ..besides, anyone who is actually seriously looking at a Chrysler, let > alone a Sebring with it's horrible repair history and then thinks it's > comparable to a Japanese car like a Camry is stump stupid. > > I, personally, will never, ever own a Chrysler product ever again. That hasn't been our experience, with many Chryslers since '79, except for the Chrysler NEW stick shift 4 Speed in an '81 Horizon., however Chrysler replaced that transmission after 2 yrs with complete success. In fact the reliability and performance of our Chryslers has been very good, the problem I have is the type of cars they are now building don't interest us. Currently have a '95 Concord and '01 Sebring that run perfectly and have had low maintenance costs. >> ..besides, anyone who is actually seriously looking at a Chrysler, let >> alone a Sebring with it's horrible repair history and then thinks it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Currently have a '95 Concord and '01 Sebring that run perfectly and have >had low maintenance costs. Unfortunately, my experience with Chrysler products wasn't as bright. I *do* think they have the best body styles. Their Charger's, 300's and others are very nice looking cars. Then again, they have the PT Cruiser..ugh. |
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.