Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death. Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt I don’t find most of Ford’s line very exciting either- no way would I own a Taurus, Contour, or Focus. But Fords in general are, IMO, far better built than GM cars. If there were no Chrysler offerings at all and I couldn’t buy a truck/SUV, I’d go get a Mercury Marauder in a heartbeat. Even a plain Crown Vic would sit better with me than a GM product. Same in trucks- if I couldn’t buy a Ram, I’d buy an F-series. The GM C/K series and Suburban have been the top vehicles in Texas Lemon Law claims for YEARS now.
No offense, but I believe your information on quality is dated. For the last few years most of the GM brands have scored above Ford and Mercury on most quality charts, with Buick scoring above many imports and near the top overall, believe it or not. Matt
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Thank You Phil. I have been telling people that for years. A vehicle consists of 1000’s of parts and if just 1 malfunctions (even a little screw loose)(the car-not me) can cause a vehicle to not start or run properly. We rant and rave about the piece of junk this and piece of junk that. Calm down and realize Point #1 Fix it or have it fixed and get on with your life. People complain that they would NEVER BUY another product made by that company because they are all junk. Get real and wake up. The time to complain is when you take it back to get it fixed and the company that made it, is uncoperative. THEN you have a reason to complain.
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens.
Very good point. I hate people that take a sample of one, and from that bad mouth a whole brand. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient.
Not true, public transportation breaks down, after all they use buses that are 15 years old and have pretty rough service. I know our city has had a couple of bus fires while in service, and several cases where the bus has to pull over due to low brake pressure. I’ve also been on a bus that broke down no less than 4 times on a 5 day trip. The last one forced us to be stuck at a dirty back woods garage for 3 hours. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Response:
Hear hear! DAS — For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling —
1. If it is man-made it will break – period.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
I would have to agree. I just love it when people say they will never buy chrysler again, but I guess they do not look at the other newgroups. I browse the other two Americans(ford/gm) and they have just as much problems as chrysler does. Granted the problems may be different, but the quantitiy of them is still there. — Nick <Remove number one if replying by electronic mail
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1 I would have to agree. I just love it when people say they will never buy chrysler again, but I guess they do not look at the other newgroups. I browse the other two Americans(ford/gm) and they have just as much problems as chrysler does. Granted the problems may be different, but the quantitiy of them is still there. — Nick
My Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee is a great vehicle and never lets me down.. but take a look at this.. http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/buyacaronline/a/usedcarbest_3.htm .. it is rated among the worst..
Response:
3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. Not true, public transportation breaks down, after all they use buses that are 15 years old and have pretty rough service. I know our city has had a couple of bus fires while in service, and several cases where the bus has to pull over due to low brake pressure. I’ve also been on a bus that broke down no less than 4 times on a 5 day trip. The last one forced us to be stuck at a dirty back woods garage for 3 hours.
Very true on the public transportation. What I meant is not to fall victim to your own. Who cares if a public transport vehicle breaks. Just transfer to the next one coming along.
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period.
Everything "breaks" ie: goes from a more organized system to chaos over time, this includes lifeforms. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it.
I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. Never mind that there’s no shortage of metal but there is a shortage of oil that’s used to make the plastic. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended whereas the plastic will sit in a landfill forever. Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. No, this automaker decides to use plastic. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Then they finally admit they were morons but guess what – you still have to pay for a new manifold, unless of course your car is a cop car in which case you get it for free. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. Everything "breaks" ie: goes from a more organized system to chaos over time, this includes lifeforms. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. Never mind that there’s no shortage of metal but there is a shortage of oil that’s used to make the plastic. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended whereas the plastic will sit in a landfill forever. Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. No, this automaker decides to use plastic. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Then they finally admit they were morons but guess what – you still have to pay for a new manifold, unless of course your car is a cop car in which case you get it for free. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted
Ted: Take a tour of several different car stores. Lift the hood on almost any vehicle and tap the intake manifold. Let us know the stats! I would guess that fully 90% will be plastic. It has to do with weight, and a properly formulated and formed plastic will do just fine, the one of which you speak was poorly conceived. Dan
Response:
I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic.
Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal.
By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended
…as can be a great many different plastic materials… Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones.
For a given level of technology, that’s most certainly not true. It can be much easier, faster and less expensive to cast particularly complex manifolds in plastic than in metal. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would.
Improper material selection and/or installation technique. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse.
Chrysler A604 transmission, Toyota 3.0 V6 engine, Ford 3.0 V6 engine, Ford AXOD transmission, Ford alternator, Ford ignition switch, Ford Explorer, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet V8 Holley carburetor, Ford intake manifolds, Ford cylinder heads…the list of examples of manufacturers stonewalling and claiming there’s no problem except owner abuse is lengthy and historical even if you omit anything having to do with plastic intake manifolds. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers.
Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford. DS
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended …as can be a great many different plastic materials… Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. For a given level of technology, that’s most certainly not true. It can be much easier, faster and less expensive to cast particularly complex manifolds in plastic than in metal. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. Improper material selection and/or installation technique. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Chrysler A604 transmission, Toyota 3.0 V6 engine, Ford 3.0 V6 engine, Ford
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. AXOD transmission, Ford alternator, Ford ignition switch, Ford Explorer, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet V8 Holley carburetor, Ford intake manifolds, Ford cylinder heads…the list of examples of manufacturers stonewalling and claiming there’s no problem except owner abuse is lengthy and historical even if you omit anything having to do with plastic intake manifolds. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford.
You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general.
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine.
A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. For a few months, I had a job as a line counterman at a large used auto parts place just outside of Denver. Amusement during work was sparse, so we had to make our own fun. One of the games we played was Taurus Bingo. When the phone rang and the voice on the other end said "Hi, I have a <year Taurus", we’d say "Sorry, we don’t have a working transmission for you." Most of the time, after a bit of shocked silence, the caller would say "Figures. OK, thanks" and hang up. If the caller said "But I don’t need a transmission", most of the time saying "Sorry, we don’t have a 3.0 V6 for you, either" would get "Figures. OK, thanks" and end of call. You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general.
Doesn’t. (And it’s "your", not "you’re". I am not evidence.) I’ve had very good success with domestic cars chosen thoughtfully, and I’ve been bitten hard enough by foreign cars chosen on recommendation of Condemner Retards magazine that I no longer purchase foreign makes. DS
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. For a few months, I had a job as a line counterman at a large used auto parts place just outside of Denver. Amusement during work was sparse, so we had to make our own fun. One of the games we played was Taurus Bingo. When the phone rang and the voice on the other end said "Hi, I have a <year Taurus", we’d say "Sorry, we don’t have a working transmission for you." Most of the time, after a bit of shocked silence, the caller would say "Figures. OK, thanks" and hang up. If the caller said "But I don’t need a transmission", most of the time saying "Sorry, we don’t have a 3.0 V6 for you, either" would get "Figures. OK, thanks" and end of call.
Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup. Reading the Ford newsgroup there isn’t a whole lot of commotion about the 3.0. Any of it seems to be bolts coming loose. The AXOD and 3.8 head gasket has created huge amounts of commotion. Also, wouldn’t you rake in a killing if you had these parts in stock? Or were they just flying off the shelf? Did you ever play A604 bingo? Head gasket bingo? You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general. Doesn’t. (And it’s "your", not "you’re". I am not evidence.)
Caught me on this one, usually I’m more careful. I’ve had very good success with domestic cars chosen thoughtfully, and I’ve been bitten hard enough by foreign cars chosen on recommendation of Condemner Retards magazine that I no longer purchase foreign makes.
CR is the worst piece of garbage to ever exist, possibly worse than Fords. I’ve pretty much given up with most car magazines. For once I agree with your mockery of a name. Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. Toyota has never had oil problems. Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup.
We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item… Also, wouldn’t you rake in a killing if you had these parts in stock?
We couldn’t *keep* those parts in stock. Did you ever play A604 bingo?
You betchya! Head gasket bingo?
…no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets. But we did play Cadillac 4.1 V8 bingo, and Lincoln air suspension bingo, and Subaru headlight bingo, and all sort of other bingos. CR is the worst piece of garbage to ever exist
Hasn’t always been that way. I bought a 1961 CR issue that had a test of the Dodge Lancer, since I own a 1962 Lancer. WOW. If CR were still this insightful, probing, unbiased and accurate, it would be a useful tool. It has not been for at least two decades. I’ve pretty much given up with most car magazines. For once I agree with your mockery of a name.
Oil filters! Red wine! Lawn mowers! Hamburgers! Headlamps! Word processing software! Speakers! You name it, they’ll pretend to be experts and contrive "tests" to prove it! Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import.
So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta. Toyota has never had oil problems.
Wrongo. Premature and prodigious sludge formation in Toyota 3-litre V6s, with resultant engine death. Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem.
Wrongo again. Honda has had *severe* transmission problems. They’ve handled them a damned sight better than Chrysler handled theirs, but they’ve had ‘em. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
Hat trick! Hat trick! Wrong yet again! 3-litre top ends (valve guides, crankcase ventillation systems, general oil sealing). Every first-world manufacturer has put forth good designs and bad ones, built well and built poorly. It’s the well-designed, well-built autos you want to buy, and any other combo you want to avoid. This cannot be done by shopping for a car attached to a "Honda" nameplate. The present Civic, for instance, is an ENORMOUS retrograde step in virtually everything from ergonomics to performance to handling to headlamp output compared to the previous Civic…and none of the new shortcomings has been fixed since the present Civic was released for ‘01. DS
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup. We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item…
You’re right, that is pretty sad. But I bet if you did sell 3.8 head gaskets your phone would be ringing off the hook. Head gasket bingo? …no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets.
Too bad, you’d make a killing. Subaru headlight bingo
Subaru? Why would someone need a part for a Subaru? It’s Japanese perfection. DOES NOT COMPUTE!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!! Oil filters! Red wine! Lawn mowers! Hamburgers! Headlamps! Word processing software! Speakers! You name it, they’ll pretend to be experts and contrive "tests" to prove it!
A lot of people do. More cupholders/ airbags / Jap name plate? Guaranteed winner. If a car "seems like" it doesn’t brake well, when quantitative braking distances say otherwise, it doesn’t matter, what matters is if it "seems" better (usually dependant on nose dive). One of my favorite is apple-orange comparisons. Comparing a low trimline domestic against a higher trimline import. One example I can think of is the beloved Taurus. It’s base 3.0L 12V V6 puts out ~150HP, so does the 4cyl Camry. The upgraded V6 Taurus, and the V6 Camry put out ~200HP. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for base-base or upgrade-upgrade are very similar (fraction of a second). Doesn’t mater, the Taurus is anemic and the Camry has great acceleration. Usually because they put a base Taurus against a V6 Camry. Then they count the number of cupholders, airbags, and woodgrain finish for a final count. Comparing the Neon to other cars in its class, it usually wins for 0-60. Same thing, it ends up as the "anemic" one. Fortunately the SRT-4 removes all question. Although I read a review of the 2004 model SRT-4. They started knocking points for problems in the 2003 model, but didn’t notice they were changed for 2004. The major problem was it didn’t contain mystical refinement like all imports do by default. Another bizarre comparison found a high end Echo Hatchback compared with a stripper focus hatch, and a base golf. The echo was almost twice the cost of the focus. Real fair comparison. Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta.
There was a subtle bit of sarcasm in there, which is why I cited known examples of Japanese problems. But speaking of Jetta. What an overpriced piece of crap! Is there any logical reason why it has such high resale? Looking in the classifieds, it seems people sell them with 300K for more than they bought it. Every first-world manufacturer has put forth good designs and bad ones, built well and built poorly. It’s the well-designed, well-built autos you want to buy, and any other combo you want to avoid.
I have two cars that CR (and many others) say should be in the shop, or behind a tow truck more than on the road. Only ever had minor problems.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-) Hey now, my first car was a ‘68 Ranchero (Torino from the doors forward)… uhhh… On second thought…. you’re right 
Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death.
Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt
Response:
Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death. Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt
I don’t find most of Ford’s line very exciting either- no way would I own a Taurus, Contour, or Focus. But Fords in general are, IMO, far better built than GM cars. If there were no Chrysler offerings at all and I couldn’t buy a truck/SUV, I’d go get a Mercury Marauder in a heartbeat. Even a plain Crown Vic would sit better with me than a GM product. Same in trucks- if I couldn’t buy a Ram, I’d buy an F-series. The GM C/K series and Suburban have been the top vehicles in Texas Lemon Law claims for YEARS now.
Response:
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-)
No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-) Matt
Response:
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-)
Hey now, my first car was a ‘68 Ranchero (Torino from the doors forward)… uhhh… On second thought…. you’re right Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented.
No, not at all. What I’m saying is the advantages of switching need to be compelling for the customer to be used as a guinea pig. The advantages of driving a car vs walking are very compelling. Thus, the consumer certainly would have been willing to put up with all the troubles of the first generations of automobiles. The advantages of using a plastic intake manifold vs a metal one are not. Thus if the automaker is going to make a change to get some minor (to them) benefit, they better be prepared to make absolutely sure to do it right the first time. Almost certainly if Ford had given a choice to all the new CV owners of whether they could buy a car with an aluminum intake manifold or one with a plastic manifold, the majority of purchasers would have not chosen the plastic manifold if they had been told this was the first year of manufacture. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended …as can be a great many different plastic materials…
But they usually aren’t. You can dump an entire engine into a steel furnace without spending labor disassembling it, and melt it down. You mix it other metals, like aluminum, and you have to dump it into a steel shredder first to pull the ferrous metal out, while this is a bit more expensive, you still can get a pot of molten steel and a pot of molten aluminum without a lot of work. You mix in plastic and now even shredding it, you cannot separate the plastic from the non-ferrous metal, so you end up tossing all that into a furnace, separating the metals out, and what is left over is burned up plastic. Or you pay a lot of labor to a person to unbolt the plastic. And of course since the plastics from different manufacturers are of different formulations, you have to take even more work sorting them. No, plastic recycling in the auto industry is pretty horrible. Even steel recycling is getting bad since steel prices have fallen so much, it usually costs as much money to tow the wreck to the junkyard as the junkyard gets out of steel for it. Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford.
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) Ted
Response:
…no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets. But we did play Cadillac 4.1 V8 bingo,
I know a recycling yard owner who flat-out says that the Caddy HT4100 was the single most profitable item that ever passed through his yard in 30 years of business…. on the rare occasions that the HT4100 was not the REASON the car was passing through his yard in the first place. 
Response:
Toyota has never had oil problems.
Tell that to Charlene Blake :-p Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem.
Honda’s 4-speed automatic had a failure rate reportedly as high or higher than Chrysler’s A-604. The only difference is that Honda bends over backward to keep customers happy and avoid recalls- I personally think they go so far that it becomes practically a cover-up operation. The most obvious case (to me) is the early 90s ignitor module problem, where they were quietly replacing ignitors on cars that came in for completely unrelated service. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
On what planet?!?!? Good heavens, man, have you never seen blue-smoke-puffing Chrysler minivans or Dodge Dynasties? Every one of them has a Mitsubishi 3-liter v6 under the hood. The ones with Chrysler-built 3.3s never did that. And don’t get me started on the 2.6L 4-cylinder that got a new head casting EVERY YEAR but never got one that didn’t crack. I’ll give Honda rock-solid engines (if not transmissions or chassis), but Mitsu doesn’t even get that much credit.
Response:
And 100 years ago there weren’t any plastics anyway… DAS — For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – would guess that fully 90% will be plastic. It has to do with weight, and a properly formulated and formed plastic will do just fine, the one of which you speak was poorly conceived. Dan
Response:
We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item… You’re right, that is pretty sad. But I bet if you did sell 3.8 head gaskets your phone would be ringing off the hook.
I’m certain the NAPA up the street kept them in deep stock. A lot of people do. More cupholders/ airbags / Jap name plate? Guaranteed winner. If a car "seems like" it doesn’t brake well, when quantitative braking distances say otherwise, it doesn’t matter, what matters is if it "seems" better (usually dependant on nose dive). One of my favorite is apple-orange comparisons.
And one of *my* favorites is enormous differences in the reliability ratings of such identical twins as Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, Mercury Grand Marquis/Ford Crown Victoria, Chevrolet Caprice/Pontiac Parisienne, Geo Prizm/Toyota Corolla (guess which one was the "much better car"), etc. The major problem was it didn’t contain mystical refinement like all imports do by default.
Ah, yes. That piece of shit ‘90 Jetta we bought on CR’s recommendation was said to "exude quality". Must have been a typo. Should’ve read "exclude". Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta. There was a subtle bit of sarcasm in there,
Which I missed entirely. Sorry. But speaking of Jetta. What an overpriced piece of crap! Is there any logical reason why it has such high resale?
Yep. Same reason Apple Computer and Harley-Davidson get away with charging what they do for their products. It’s not just a car, it’s not just a computer, it’s not just a motorcycle…it’s a *lifestyle*. I have two cars that CR (and many others) say should be in the shop, or behind a tow truck more than on the road. Only ever had minor problems.
Likewise. DS (Isn’t it just so much nicer in here now the alleged professor from Emory’s gone away?)
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Thank You Phil. I have been telling people that for years. A vehicle consists of 1000’s of parts and if just 1 malfunctions (even a little screw loose)(the car-not me) can cause a vehicle to not start or run properly. We rant and rave about the piece of junk this and piece of junk that. Calm down and realize Point #1 Fix it or have it fixed and get on with your life. People complain that they would NEVER BUY another product made by that company because they are all junk. Get real and wake up. The time to complain is when you take it back to get it fixed and the company that made it, is uncoperative. THEN you have a reason to complain.
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens.
Very good point. I hate people that take a sample of one, and from that bad mouth a whole brand. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient.
Not true, public transportation breaks down, after all they use buses that are 15 years old and have pretty rough service. I know our city has had a couple of bus fires while in service, and several cases where the bus has to pull over due to low brake pressure. I’ve also been on a bus that broke down no less than 4 times on a 5 day trip. The last one forced us to be stuck at a dirty back woods garage for 3 hours. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
Response:
Hear hear! DAS — For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling —
1. If it is man-made it will break – period.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1
I would have to agree. I just love it when people say they will never buy chrysler again, but I guess they do not look at the other newgroups. I browse the other two Americans(ford/gm) and they have just as much problems as chrysler does. Granted the problems may be different, but the quantitiy of them is still there. — Nick <Remove number one if replying by electronic mail
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. All those who bad mouth a manufacturer or vow never to buy brand X again are a bunch of cry babies. These are the same people who cry because the batteries on the remote control are dead and they have to get off the couch to change channels on the tv. Sure, I’ve had a break down or two over the last 20 years. No big deal. Shit happens. 3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. 4. If NASA, with all of the world’s greatest engineers and billions of dollars build a vehicle which blows up on launch or breaks up on re-entry, you can at least expect your car to do the same or less. Point: See #1 I would have to agree. I just love it when people say they will never buy chrysler again, but I guess they do not look at the other newgroups. I browse the other two Americans(ford/gm) and they have just as much problems as chrysler does. Granted the problems may be different, but the quantitiy of them is still there. — Nick
My Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee is a great vehicle and never lets me down.. but take a look at this.. http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/buyacaronline/a/usedcarbest_3.htm .. it is rated among the worst..
Response:
3. If you never want to fall victim to an automotive breakdown, take public transit. For those who haven’t, be patient. Not true, public transportation breaks down, after all they use buses that are 15 years old and have pretty rough service. I know our city has had a couple of bus fires while in service, and several cases where the bus has to pull over due to low brake pressure. I’ve also been on a bus that broke down no less than 4 times on a 5 day trip. The last one forced us to be stuck at a dirty back woods garage for 3 hours.
Very true on the public transportation. What I meant is not to fall victim to your own. Who cares if a public transport vehicle breaks. Just transfer to the next one coming along.
Response:
1. If it is man-made it will break – period.
Everything "breaks" ie: goes from a more organized system to chaos over time, this includes lifeforms. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it.
I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. Never mind that there’s no shortage of metal but there is a shortage of oil that’s used to make the plastic. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended whereas the plastic will sit in a landfill forever. Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. No, this automaker decides to use plastic. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Then they finally admit they were morons but guess what – you still have to pay for a new manifold, unless of course your car is a cop car in which case you get it for free. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. If it is man-made it will break – period. Everything "breaks" ie: goes from a more organized system to chaos over time, this includes lifeforms. 2. Realize that cars, with 1000’s of moving parts, will break down – regardless of manufacturer. Over the last 100 years, we have spoiled ourselves with technology. We’ve gotten used to the modern marvels of science and technology that we’ve taken it for granted. If your car breaks down, and it will, accept it. I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. Never mind that there’s no shortage of metal but there is a shortage of oil that’s used to make the plastic. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended whereas the plastic will sit in a landfill forever. Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. No, this automaker decides to use plastic. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Then they finally admit they were morons but guess what – you still have to pay for a new manifold, unless of course your car is a cop car in which case you get it for free. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted
Ted: Take a tour of several different car stores. Lift the hood on almost any vehicle and tap the intake manifold. Let us know the stats! I would guess that fully 90% will be plastic. It has to do with weight, and a properly formulated and formed plastic will do just fine, the one of which you speak was poorly conceived. Dan
Response:
I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic.
Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal.
By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended
…as can be a great many different plastic materials… Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones.
For a given level of technology, that’s most certainly not true. It can be much easier, faster and less expensive to cast particularly complex manifolds in plastic than in metal. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would.
Improper material selection and/or installation technique. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse.
Chrysler A604 transmission, Toyota 3.0 V6 engine, Ford 3.0 V6 engine, Ford AXOD transmission, Ford alternator, Ford ignition switch, Ford Explorer, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet V8 Holley carburetor, Ford intake manifolds, Ford cylinder heads…the list of examples of manufacturers stonewalling and claiming there’s no problem except owner abuse is lengthy and historical even if you omit anything having to do with plastic intake manifolds. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers.
Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford. DS
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended …as can be a great many different plastic materials… Never mind that the plastic manifolds cost MORE MONEY than metal ones. For a given level of technology, that’s most certainly not true. It can be much easier, faster and less expensive to cast particularly complex manifolds in plastic than in metal. Then over time what do you expect – the manifolds start cracking far, far earlier than a metal one would. Improper material selection and/or installation technique. And this certain automaker rather than admit they were fucking idiots to use plastic, they just stonewall and claim that there’s no problem. Then they claim that the problem is due to owner abuse. Chrysler A604 transmission, Toyota 3.0 V6 engine, Ford 3.0 V6 engine, Ford
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. AXOD transmission, Ford alternator, Ford ignition switch, Ford Explorer, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet V8 Holley carburetor, Ford intake manifolds, Ford cylinder heads…the list of examples of manufacturers stonewalling and claiming there’s no problem except owner abuse is lengthy and historical even if you omit anything having to do with plastic intake manifolds. Yes – cars will break down and we all got to pay homage to the great, all-knowing automakers. Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford.
You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general.
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine.
A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. For a few months, I had a job as a line counterman at a large used auto parts place just outside of Denver. Amusement during work was sparse, so we had to make our own fun. One of the games we played was Taurus Bingo. When the phone rang and the voice on the other end said "Hi, I have a <year Taurus", we’d say "Sorry, we don’t have a working transmission for you." Most of the time, after a bit of shocked silence, the caller would say "Figures. OK, thanks" and hang up. If the caller said "But I don’t need a transmission", most of the time saying "Sorry, we don’t have a 3.0 V6 for you, either" would get "Figures. OK, thanks" and end of call. You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general.
Doesn’t. (And it’s "your", not "you’re". I am not evidence.) I’ve had very good success with domestic cars chosen thoughtfully, and I’ve been bitten hard enough by foreign cars chosen on recommendation of Condemner Retards magazine that I no longer purchase foreign makes. DS
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. For a few months, I had a job as a line counterman at a large used auto parts place just outside of Denver. Amusement during work was sparse, so we had to make our own fun. One of the games we played was Taurus Bingo. When the phone rang and the voice on the other end said "Hi, I have a <year Taurus", we’d say "Sorry, we don’t have a working transmission for you." Most of the time, after a bit of shocked silence, the caller would say "Figures. OK, thanks" and hang up. If the caller said "But I don’t need a transmission", most of the time saying "Sorry, we don’t have a 3.0 V6 for you, either" would get "Figures. OK, thanks" and end of call.
Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup. Reading the Ford newsgroup there isn’t a whole lot of commotion about the 3.0. Any of it seems to be bolts coming loose. The AXOD and 3.8 head gasket has created huge amounts of commotion. Also, wouldn’t you rake in a killing if you had these parts in stock? Or were they just flying off the shelf? Did you ever play A604 bingo? Head gasket bingo? You’re evidence suggests not buying a domestic in general. Doesn’t. (And it’s "your", not "you’re". I am not evidence.)
Caught me on this one, usually I’m more careful. I’ve had very good success with domestic cars chosen thoughtfully, and I’ve been bitten hard enough by foreign cars chosen on recommendation of Condemner Retards magazine that I no longer purchase foreign makes.
CR is the worst piece of garbage to ever exist, possibly worse than Fords. I’ve pretty much given up with most car magazines. For once I agree with your mockery of a name. Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. Toyota has never had oil problems. Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup.
We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item… Also, wouldn’t you rake in a killing if you had these parts in stock?
We couldn’t *keep* those parts in stock. Did you ever play A604 bingo?
You betchya! Head gasket bingo?
…no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets. But we did play Cadillac 4.1 V8 bingo, and Lincoln air suspension bingo, and Subaru headlight bingo, and all sort of other bingos. CR is the worst piece of garbage to ever exist
Hasn’t always been that way. I bought a 1961 CR issue that had a test of the Dodge Lancer, since I own a 1962 Lancer. WOW. If CR were still this insightful, probing, unbiased and accurate, it would be a useful tool. It has not been for at least two decades. I’ve pretty much given up with most car magazines. For once I agree with your mockery of a name.
Oil filters! Red wine! Lawn mowers! Hamburgers! Headlamps! Word processing software! Speakers! You name it, they’ll pretend to be experts and contrive "tests" to prove it! Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import.
So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta. Toyota has never had oil problems.
Wrongo. Premature and prodigious sludge formation in Toyota 3-litre V6s, with resultant engine death. Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem.
Wrongo again. Honda has had *severe* transmission problems. They’ve handled them a damned sight better than Chrysler handled theirs, but they’ve had ‘em. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
Hat trick! Hat trick! Wrong yet again! 3-litre top ends (valve guides, crankcase ventillation systems, general oil sealing). Every first-world manufacturer has put forth good designs and bad ones, built well and built poorly. It’s the well-designed, well-built autos you want to buy, and any other combo you want to avoid. This cannot be done by shopping for a car attached to a "Honda" nameplate. The present Civic, for instance, is an ENORMOUS retrograde step in virtually everything from ergonomics to performance to handling to headlamp output compared to the previous Civic…and none of the new shortcomings has been fixed since the present Civic was released for ‘01. DS
Response:
The Ford 3.8 V6 was the one with the problems, the 3.0 is fine. A great many Taurus owners would disagree with you. Ok, the 3.0 might not be perfect, but I think the 3.8 head gasket problem and the AXOD transmission problem is far worse than any 3.0 problems in the Taurus lineup. We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item…
You’re right, that is pretty sad. But I bet if you did sell 3.8 head gaskets your phone would be ringing off the hook. Head gasket bingo? …no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets.
Too bad, you’d make a killing. Subaru headlight bingo
Subaru? Why would someone need a part for a Subaru? It’s Japanese perfection. DOES NOT COMPUTE!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!! Oil filters! Red wine! Lawn mowers! Hamburgers! Headlamps! Word processing software! Speakers! You name it, they’ll pretend to be experts and contrive "tests" to prove it!
A lot of people do. More cupholders/ airbags / Jap name plate? Guaranteed winner. If a car "seems like" it doesn’t brake well, when quantitative braking distances say otherwise, it doesn’t matter, what matters is if it "seems" better (usually dependant on nose dive). One of my favorite is apple-orange comparisons. Comparing a low trimline domestic against a higher trimline import. One example I can think of is the beloved Taurus. It’s base 3.0L 12V V6 puts out ~150HP, so does the 4cyl Camry. The upgraded V6 Taurus, and the V6 Camry put out ~200HP. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for base-base or upgrade-upgrade are very similar (fraction of a second). Doesn’t mater, the Taurus is anemic and the Camry has great acceleration. Usually because they put a base Taurus against a V6 Camry. Then they count the number of cupholders, airbags, and woodgrain finish for a final count. Comparing the Neon to other cars in its class, it usually wins for 0-60. Same thing, it ends up as the "anemic" one. Fortunately the SRT-4 removes all question. Although I read a review of the 2004 model SRT-4. They started knocking points for problems in the 2003 model, but didn’t notice they were changed for 2004. The major problem was it didn’t contain mystical refinement like all imports do by default. Another bizarre comparison found a high end Echo Hatchback compared with a stripper focus hatch, and a base golf. The echo was almost twice the cost of the focus. Real fair comparison. Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta.
There was a subtle bit of sarcasm in there, which is why I cited known examples of Japanese problems. But speaking of Jetta. What an overpriced piece of crap! Is there any logical reason why it has such high resale? Looking in the classifieds, it seems people sell them with 300K for more than they bought it. Every first-world manufacturer has put forth good designs and bad ones, built well and built poorly. It’s the well-designed, well-built autos you want to buy, and any other combo you want to avoid.
I have two cars that CR (and many others) say should be in the shop, or behind a tow truck more than on the road. Only ever had minor problems.
Response:
And 100 years ago there weren’t any plastics anyway… DAS — For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – would guess that fully 90% will be plastic. It has to do with weight, and a properly formulated and formed plastic will do just fine, the one of which you speak was poorly conceived. Dan
Response:
We’re arguing over which item is less worse than which other item… You’re right, that is pretty sad. But I bet if you did sell 3.8 head gaskets your phone would be ringing off the hook.
I’m certain the NAPA up the street kept them in deep stock. A lot of people do. More cupholders/ airbags / Jap name plate? Guaranteed winner. If a car "seems like" it doesn’t brake well, when quantitative braking distances say otherwise, it doesn’t matter, what matters is if it "seems" better (usually dependant on nose dive). One of my favorite is apple-orange comparisons.
And one of *my* favorites is enormous differences in the reliability ratings of such identical twins as Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, Mercury Grand Marquis/Ford Crown Victoria, Chevrolet Caprice/Pontiac Parisienne, Geo Prizm/Toyota Corolla (guess which one was the "much better car"), etc. The major problem was it didn’t contain mystical refinement like all imports do by default.
Ah, yes. That piece of shit ‘90 Jetta we bought on CR’s recommendation was said to "exude quality". Must have been a typo. Should’ve read "exclude". Although I don’t know how you could ever have a problem with an import. So you’re one of the brainwashed, too, then, eh? The non-US carmakers can do no wrong? Horseshit. Volkswagen Jetta. There was a subtle bit of sarcasm in there,
Which I missed entirely. Sorry. But speaking of Jetta. What an overpriced piece of crap! Is there any logical reason why it has such high resale?
Yep. Same reason Apple Computer and Harley-Davidson get away with charging what they do for their products. It’s not just a car, it’s not just a computer, it’s not just a motorcycle…it’s a *lifestyle*. I have two cars that CR (and many others) say should be in the shop, or behind a tow truck more than on the road. Only ever had minor problems.
Likewise. DS (Isn’t it just so much nicer in here now the alleged professor from Emory’s gone away?)
Response:
…no. Wrecking yards don’t sell head gaskets. But we did play Cadillac 4.1 V8 bingo,
I know a recycling yard owner who flat-out says that the Caddy HT4100 was the single most profitable item that ever passed through his yard in 30 years of business…. on the rare occasions that the HT4100 was not the REASON the car was passing through his yard in the first place.
Response:
Toyota has never had oil problems.
Tell that to Charlene Blake :-p Same as Honda has never had front suspension or transmission problem.
Honda’s 4-speed automatic had a failure rate reportedly as high or higher than Chrysler’s A-604. The only difference is that Honda bends over backward to keep customers happy and avoid recalls- I personally think they go so far that it becomes practically a cover-up operation. The most obvious case (to me) is the early 90s ignitor module problem, where they were quietly replacing ignitors on cars that came in for completely unrelated service. Mitsubuishi also has a history of making trouble free engines.
On what planet?!?!? Good heavens, man, have you never seen blue-smoke-puffing Chrysler minivans or Dodge Dynasties? Every one of them has a Mitsubishi 3-liter v6 under the hood. The ones with Chrysler-built 3.3s never did that. And don’t get me started on the 2.6L 4-cylinder that got a new head casting EVERY YEAR but never got one that didn’t crack. I’ll give Honda rock-solid engines (if not transmissions or chassis), but Mitsu doesn’t even get that much credit.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have a problem with cars that break down when the breakdown is wear-related but I do have a problem when the breakdown is clearly due to a design stupidity. For example, a certain automaker decides that it would be a great idea to start making intake manifolds out of plastic. Many automakers have decided it is a great idea to make intake manifolds out of plastic. As long as they are designed, specced, made and installed correctly in accordance with the characteristics of the specific materials used, plastic intake manifolds offer several real advantages over metal ones. However, if an improper material or assembly technique is applied, or if the design of a specific manifold is in some way flawed, then that specific manifold will make problems. However, your next statement is utterly asinine: Never mind that for nearly 100 years this automaker and every other automaker has been making intake manifolds out of metal. By this "logic", we should all be walking. We did so for thousands of years before the horse-drawn buggy was invented.
No, not at all. What I’m saying is the advantages of switching need to be compelling for the customer to be used as a guinea pig. The advantages of driving a car vs walking are very compelling. Thus, the consumer certainly would have been willing to put up with all the troubles of the first generations of automobiles. The advantages of using a plastic intake manifold vs a metal one are not. Thus if the automaker is going to make a change to get some minor (to them) benefit, they better be prepared to make absolutely sure to do it right the first time. Almost certainly if Ford had given a choice to all the new CV owners of whether they could buy a car with an aluminum intake manifold or one with a plastic manifold, the majority of purchasers would have not chosen the plastic manifold if they had been told this was the first year of manufacture. Never mind that the metal can be recycled when the car’s life is ended …as can be a great many different plastic materials…
But they usually aren’t. You can dump an entire engine into a steel furnace without spending labor disassembling it, and melt it down. You mix it other metals, like aluminum, and you have to dump it into a steel shredder first to pull the ferrous metal out, while this is a bit more expensive, you still can get a pot of molten steel and a pot of molten aluminum without a lot of work. You mix in plastic and now even shredding it, you cannot separate the plastic from the non-ferrous metal, so you end up tossing all that into a furnace, separating the metals out, and what is left over is burned up plastic. Or you pay a lot of labor to a person to unbolt the plastic. And of course since the plastics from different manufacturers are of different formulations, you have to take even more work sorting them. No, plastic recycling in the auto industry is pretty horrible. Even steel recycling is getting bad since steel prices have fallen so much, it usually costs as much money to tow the wreck to the junkyard as the junkyard gets out of steel for it. Ted, I guess it boils down to this: You’ve got to be smart enough not to buy a Ford.
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) Ted
Response:
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-)
No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-) Matt
Response:
There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-)
Hey now, my first car was a ‘68 Ranchero (Torino from the doors forward)… uhhh… On second thought…. you’re right Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There’s no plastic in my ‘68 Torino. :-) No need as they were crap to start with, no plastic needed to make them crap! :-) Hey now, my first car was a ‘68 Ranchero (Torino from the doors forward)… uhhh… On second thought…. you’re right Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death.
Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt
Response:
Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death. Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt
I don’t find most of Ford’s line very exciting either- no way would I own a Taurus, Contour, or Focus. But Fords in general are, IMO, far better built than GM cars. If there were no Chrysler offerings at all and I couldn’t buy a truck/SUV, I’d go get a Mercury Marauder in a heartbeat. Even a plain Crown Vic would sit better with me than a GM product. Same in trucks- if I couldn’t buy a Ram, I’d buy an F-series. The GM C/K series and Suburban have been the top vehicles in Texas Lemon Law claims for YEARS now.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Still, Ford remains my second choice when Chrysler gets 100% Daimlered to death. Really? For me, GM is clearly the second choice behind Chrysler. I’m still willing to give Bill Ford a few more years, but I’m completely unimpressed with Ford’s current offerings … other than the new GT40, but who can afford a 150K+ car.. Matt I don’t find most of Ford’s line very exciting either- no way would I own a Taurus, Contour, or Focus. But Fords in general are, IMO, far better built than GM cars. If there were no Chrysler offerings at all and I couldn’t buy a truck/SUV, I’d go get a Mercury Marauder in a heartbeat. Even a plain Crown Vic would sit better with me than a GM product. Same in trucks- if I couldn’t buy a Ram, I’d buy an F-series. The GM C/K series and Suburban have been the top vehicles in Texas Lemon Law claims for YEARS now.
No offense, but I believe your information on quality is dated. For the last few years most of the GM brands have scored above Ford and Mercury on most quality charts, with Buick scoring above many imports and near the top overall, believe it or not. Matt
Response:
Categories: Furnace Ignitors | 
No Comments »
) One of my NEC ignitor was hammered to find nothing but conductive or semiconductive material. It*s hard to make out a destroyed component. If you*re reffering to the NEC, it*s encased in steel. Good luck opening it.