Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009.
wis...@yahoo.com
American public does not need their products or companies as now
constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
save a lot of money).
ted
*The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
balls".
Brent
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
> save a lot of money).
> *The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
> agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
> balls".
The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
final cost to him.
Now, the used car thing. A used car is something that one has to be very
careful about because how good the car is becomes very dependent on the
previous owner(s). For knowledgable people who want to put the effort
in, it can be big savings if they aren't concerned about getting exactly
the car they want. Used car shopping takes a fair amount of time and
effort that new car shopping doesn't. So it depends on how much one
values his time.
clams_casino
>On 2008-12-13, wis...@yahoo.com <wis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
>>American public does not need their products or companies as now
>>constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
>>save a lot of money).
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>*The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
>>agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
>>balls".
>>
>>
>
>The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
>irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
>the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
>with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
>but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
>between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
>final cost to him.
>
>
But as you mentioned, their outrageous benefits packages makes their
cars non competitive. For similar pricing one can purchase competing
cars with more options & far superior quality.
Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
the long run.
Of course, this is nothing new. The domestic three having been losing
market share (over half) for at least 25 years.
Brent
> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> the long run.
How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
required to make the comparison.
There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.
Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
clams_casino
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>the long run.
>>
>>
>
>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
>
The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>required to make the comparison.
>
>
What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
>An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
>Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
>honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
>when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
>and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
>interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
>miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
>60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.
>
>
Accord replacement is at 105k. It was the second repair I had to make
on my 2000 Accord. The first was a burned out tail light lamp, not
counting the original tires that I replaced at 95k.
>Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
>understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
>it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
>don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
>
>
>
So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
just ignorant?
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
> The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
> fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
> years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
Fact based on what exactly? The self reporting, that is the perceptions
of owners.
>>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>required to make the comparison.
> What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
> 30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
>>There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
>>An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
>>Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
>>honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
>>when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
>>and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
>>interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
>>miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
>>60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.
> Accord replacement is at 105k. It was the second repair I had to make
> on my 2000 Accord. The first was a burned out tail light lamp, not
> counting the original tires that I replaced at 95k.
Talk about missing the point. Anyway, you still had your earlier
bringing it in to the dealer. You don't know what they repaired when it
was in there. Honda amung other japanese makes takes care of various
issues on cars when they are in the dealership for something else and
doesn't say a word about it. I could give similiar glowing reviews about
the lack of any 'repairs' on my mustang too. But see, my replacing the
water pump at well over 100K because it appeared to be weeping slightly
(forget when now, was somewhere around 140K I think) counts as a
failure. Your accord's was replaced automatically at 105K with the
timing belt and doesn't count.
>>Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
>>understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
>>it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
>>don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
> So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
> just ignorant?
Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
deeper than the surface.
Vic Smith
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>
>>
>
>The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
>fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
>years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>
In other words, what you said about the Malibu costing twice as much
as an Accord was just bullshit?
Let's try to straighten it out here.
--Vic
clams_casino
>
>
>
>
>>What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
>>30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
>road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
>it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
>at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
>
>
Read it again. Honda replaced the water pump at 105k, when they
recommended changing out the timing gear.
>>So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
>>just ignorant?
>>
>>
>
>Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
>deeper than the surface.
>
>
>
You suggested the only difference between a Honda vs. Chevy owner is
that the Honda owner is smart enough to have some routine servicing
vs. the Chevy owner who doesn't realize a small amount of routine
servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
investment. I'd call that neglect being ignorance, although I'm a
believer that Honda uses superior parts / workmanship vs. Chevy who uses
that cost to fund their UAW benefits...
clams_casino
Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
years. History is stacked against the Malibu.
Today's Malibus might be of significantly better quality vs. 10-15 years
ago, but who would be so foolish as to believe / take the chance it's
different today / similar to today's Accord, even if it was possibly
true? Unlike the stock market, expected car quality is very likely
related to past performance.
John David Galt
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
> save a lot of money).
Unfortunately, the tax man will take our money and give it to them anyway.
clams_casino
On second thought, I'll stand corrected. Perception was the wrong
word. I should have said way too many owners have the (well earned)
belief that cars by the domestic three lack the quality of their
competition. Having experienced significantly better vehicles, it will
indeed be difficult for GM, Ford & Chrysler to win them back, even if
they were to produce a similar quality vehicle at a similar price.
Having Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc vehicle lasting twice as long as their
previous domestic three vehicle is a double whammy. Even if the
domestic three can achieve equal cost / quality, it'll likely be
generations before their slide in market share will be halted, never
mind reversed.
Brent
> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> years.
Neither car has been made for 20 years.
> History is stacked against the Malibu.
So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
vegas?
Brent
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
>>>30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
>>road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
>>it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
>>at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
>>
>>
>
> Read it again. Honda replaced the water pump at 105k, when they
> recommended changing out the timing gear.
Look, you're intentionally trying to miss the friggin point by going
into specifics. Address the point, not the milage numbers. If it bothers
you change it to 105K and 120K respectfully.
>>>So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
>>>just ignorant?
>>Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
>>deeper than the surface.
> You suggested the only difference
Strawman. I asked how much is fact and how much is perception.
> between a Honda vs. Chevy owner is
> that the Honda owner is smart enough to have some routine servicing
> vs. the Chevy owner who doesn't realize a small amount of routine
> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
> investment. I'd call that neglect being ignorance, although I'm a
> believer that Honda uses superior parts / workmanship vs. Chevy who uses
> that cost to fund their UAW benefits...
I said nothing about owner's intelligence. I assumed it equal. I stated
that Honda convinced people to actually service their vehicles and feel
good about it while GM hasn't. Let's say there is a combined honda and
chevy dealership. They send out cards to car buyers when it's time for a
milage based service. I'll wager honda owners bring their cars in more
while chevy owners don't. The later thinking it's 'just a dealer profit
center' and the former thinking they need to do it for the long life of
their vehicle.
clams_casino
It reminds me of the past election. Of the course the economy is in
shambles, the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned and the tax
reduction for the wealthy hasn't helped economy, but this time it'll be
different. Trust me.
SoCalMike
> The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
> irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
> the car costs him and what the car is and has.
and whether the company is going to be around to honor their warranty,
especially the 10yr/100k warranties that GM and chrysler were promising.
Cuz the ONLY way id even consider buying from the big3 would be with a
warranty that long.
SoCalMike
> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
> investment.
cars are NEVER an investment. theyre appliances.
lorad
Oooopa...
You must'ave received new anti-america instructions from Beijing,
again..
You're back to trying to destroy what remains of the US's industrial
base.
Bravo, comrade!
PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
squawking.
The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
ching), and allow their manufacturers to engage in monoplistic
coordination ('karetsu') (cha-ching cha-ching)... and to put up
barriers to US auto imports ( cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching)..
Finally they have citizens smart enough to realize that buying foreign
cars is BAD for their own economic well-being.
In other words, they are not FOOLS like you.
SoCalMike
from what ive read, theyre asking for "loan guarantees". no one said
jack squat when the bankers flew to DC in THEIR jets and walked away
with $700B. And then when they GOT it, they promptly gave each other
bonuses and vacation retreats for the "job well done".
clams_casino
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>years.
>>
>>
>
>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
>
The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
this time ... trust me.
Alan Baker
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> > the long run.
>
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> required to make the comparison.
No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
*need* much care.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If GM *built* this new Vega, I'd be very suspicious of its quality.
clams_casino
Agreed. I was using that term loosely. Relatively expensive
"expenditure" would probably have been a better description considering
they are most always a (money) losing "investment".
On the other hand, I recently saw a version of my first car (1962
Plymouth Fury sport convertible which cost me $700 in 1966) listed for
sale at $55k.
Brent
So if honda were to build accords but put chevy vega badges on them for
GM it would be perceived as a hunk of crap. That pretty much parallels
actual rebadged cars the big three sold that were designed and built by
japanese manufacturers.
Eeyore
clams_casino wrote:
> Brent wrote:
> >
> >The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
> >irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
> >the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
> >with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
> >but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
> >between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
> >final cost to him.
>
> But as you mentioned, their outrageous benefits packages makes their
> cars non competitive. For similar pricing one can purchase competing
> cars with more options & far superior quality.
Which is a positive factor in favour of bankruptcy, since those agreements
will then be null and void and the new owners can re-hire at realistic rates.
Might Daimler purchase the assets of a bankrupt Chrysler for instance without
all the bad things about it ?
Graham
Brent
The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
than fact. There are still numerous oldsmobiles from GMs darkest time in
the early 80s roaming the roads in the chicago area but I haven't seen a
honda from that era in a very very long time, maybe a decade now.
Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> > the long run.
>
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> required to make the comparison.
Plus Europeans are big on synthetic rather than 'dino' oil. The cheapest
engine insurance available.
No, you don't have to change the oil every 3000 miles.
Graham
Brent
> In article <gi0oue$jrh$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>> > the long run.
>>
>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>
>> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>> required to make the comparison.
>
> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> *need* much care.
Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
Alan Baker
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
than the american crap.
Brent
> In article <gi162g$pmt$3...@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
>> > Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>> >> > the long run.
>> >>
>> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>> >>
>> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>> >> required to make the comparison.
>> >
>> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>> > *need* much care.
>>
>> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>
> And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>
> Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
> than the american crap.
Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
consider one.
Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
> > 30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>
> Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
> road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
> it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
> at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
Well I had a European built GM (Vauxhall-Opel) that ran 180,000 mi before
scrapping. I got it at 60,000 mi and performed only routine maintenance on it (
I did have the cam belt changed - twice IIRC and had some new front discs /
rotors fitted plus the usual minor repairs). But not once did it fail at the
side of the road. And it was on its original water pump and all similar
ancillaries all that time too.
Interestingly GM was introducing its successor into the US market under the
Saturn brand as the Aura. You already had the Astra built by Opel as a Saturn.
So it's not just the Japanese that can do it and without having to resort to
changing lots of parts even.
Graham
p.s. I had several of that model. None were troublesome. They were also nice
cars to drive.
clams_casino
>
>
>So if honda were to build accords but put chevy vega badges on them for
>GM it would be perceived as a hunk of crap. That pretty much parallels
>actual rebadged cars the big three sold that were designed and built by
>japanese manufacturers.
>
>
>
>
That's probably true. You have to agree that GM does not have all that
great a reputation for quality.
Even if GM was able to provide a vehicle with equal (or even improved)
quality as Honda, Toyota & Nissan, I suspect it will take generations
before they'll be able to reverse their generally accepted reputation.
IMO, they really need to cut capacity & focus on a few selected lines of
well made vehicles. It'll probably take several generations before
they'll be able to establish a reversal in reputation where in the mean
time, they'll probably have to buy their way back into the market via
pricing which ironically can never happen with their current overhead
costs. Chapter 11 appears to be their only way out of their downward
spiral.
Alan Baker
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is useless.
>
> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> consider one.
You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
Eeyore
lorad wrote:
> The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
> governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
> ching).
Not sure that's true actually. Certainly for US made Hondas Nissans and
Toyotas. Anyway, nothing stopping the USA doing the same ! Universal
health care is a fraction of the cost of private btw.
Graham
Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> > Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> > years.
>
> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Malibu
clams_casino
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>>years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>>quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>>invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>>(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>>that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>>this time ... trust me.
>>
>>
>
>The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
>its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
>story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
>than fact.
>
That may or may not be true, but why put out $30k for a vehicle that
promises to be different...... this time? The track record of the
manufacturer is what provides confidence to many buyers.
It's hard to find many disgruntled owners of civics & Accords. It's
much more common to find disgruntled Chevy owners (and GM in general vs.
Honda, Toyota, Nissan).
You may want to believe it's different this time, but too many have been
burnt with that perception to go back.
Reputation is critical for a majority of car buyers.
Eeyore
clams_casino wrote:
> the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned
It wasn't even justified ! Or do you still believe the lies ?
Graham
clams_casino
You're assuming both use the same quality parts. I (and many others)
don't share that perception.
Yes, all gas pumps, alternators, water pumps, etc will eventually fail.
But, do they last 65k or 130k miles? It's been reported many times
that GM tends to use lower quality parts to make up for their higher
wage / benefits costs.
Eeyore
Alan Baker wrote:
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
> > think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
> > past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
> > vegas?
>
> If GM *built* this new Vega, I'd be very suspicious of its quality.
If GM survives, you'll be able to tell something very similar by comparing the
reliability of Saturn Auras with the previous model Opel Vectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Aura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Vectra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007-Saturn-Aura-XE.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Opel_Vectra_front_20070926.jpg
Graham
Nate Nagel
Well, Toyota did (Supra) and it's near legend these days. In my mind
I'd rather have a Toyota than a Honda just based on reputation alone.
Those old Toyota sixes were really the spiritual successor to the
overly-stout American V-8 engines of the early 50's.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
The Real Bev
> PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
> thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
> Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
> squawking.
Who answers Powers' surveys? I posit that the 'average user' figures
something is high-quality if it's nice-looking and lasts a year without
problems.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
Nate Nagel
I think that he means "in their current form." Surely you aren't
equating the reliability of a G-body Malibu with the Opel-based cars
made today?
Rod Speed
> wis...@yahoo.com <wis...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the American
>> public does not need their products or companies as now constructed. Buy a
>> used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will save a lot of money).
>> *The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
>> agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the balls".
> The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is
> essentially irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions.
Nope, its what determined that they had to flog the steaming turds with wheels they have tried to flog.
> What a buyer goes by is what the car costs him and what the car is and has.
And its that stupid agreement that determines that with the products of the big 3,
because they cant make money selling what most buyers actually want to buy.
> How the automakers deal with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
Corse it does, they choose to offer what they can make money selling with those labor corst.
> but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down between
> labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the final cost to him.
They do care about what they get to choose from to buy tho.
> Now, the used car thing. A used car is something that one
> has to be very careful about because how good the car is
> becomes very dependent on the previous owner(s).
Wrong again. Few modern cars are destroyed by their owners, particularly with cars that arent too old.
> For knowledgable people who want to put the effort in, it can be big
> savings if they aren't concerned about getting exactly the car they want.
> Used car shopping takes a fair amount of time and effort that new car
> shopping doesn't. So it depends on how much one values his time.
And how much you value getting exactly what you want too.
The Real Bev
My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work. The
antenna-raising motor burned out. The heater core rotted through. The
leather seats are cracking. The AC has had serious service a couple of
times. There were other problems that she had to pay for in addition to
quarterly "automatic" servicing, I just don't want to look through her
receipts again -- I nearly cried the first time.
I'd call that piss poor and the blame is probably shared equally between
the corrupt dealer and the manufacturer. Yet another case of wallet rape.
Rod Speed
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant maintenance
>> and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in the long run.
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
Its all reality, tho you can certainly argue with his numbers.
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
Like hell it does with say the first 10 years with a properly designed car.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or
> GM product aren't significantly different than for Honda or
> Toyota) is what is required to make the comparison.
Wrong. What matters is the different result you get with the maintenance you will be providing.
> There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
> An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the Honda,
> the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
> honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
> when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing
> belt and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the
> replacement interval.
Mindlessly superficial.
> Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000 miles,
> but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at 60,000
Wrong again.
> and doesn't have a failure on the road.
> Perception is the game these days
Like hell it is. The reality these days is that any decently designed car
will last for decades with no maintenance whatever apart from tyres etc.
> and GM still doesn't seem to understand that.
They make steaming turds with wheels that dont
last anything like as long as the imported products.
> Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like it is still
> 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
> don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
Recalls are just a nuisance, not the same as having to pay for the repairs yourself.
The Real Bev
How about a Toyota Land Cruiser? All I wanted to see was the specs, but
the site insisted on showing me a lot of flashcrap instead so I'm not
sure about the manual transmission or drive axle, but it has a V8.
Brent
except when it is for hondas obviously.
>> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>> consider one.
> You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
ignore.
Brent
yes, I'd consider a I6 supra or an old I6 Zcar.
Brent
So, where can I pick up a brand new malibu like the one in 'repo man'?
Oh wait, they aren't made any more. The current malibu has been in
production for what? a year? The name plate has been around for more
than 40 years, but the car we see today hasn't. Nor can one go buy a
new honda like they made back in the 70s or 80s either. They are
different cars now with the same name plate. In the case of GM VERY VERY
different cars. They don't even share the same drive wheels!
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>>>years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>>>quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>>>invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>>>(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>>>that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>>>this time ... trust me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
>>its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
>>story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
>>than fact.
>>
>
> That may or may not be true, but why put out $30k for a vehicle that
> promises to be different...... this time? The track record of the
> manufacturer is what provides confidence to many buyers.
Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
> It's hard to find many disgruntled owners of civics & Accords.
http://www.google.com/search?q=accord+lemon
Rather easy actually.
> It's
> much more common to find disgruntled Chevy owners (and GM in general vs.
> Honda, Toyota, Nissan).
No, it would take the same couple of seconds.
> You may want to believe it's different this time, but too many have been
> burnt with that perception to go back.
My point is that perception is the driver. I see you're coming around.
> Reputation is critical for a majority of car buyers.
Reputation based on perceptions, not facts.
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <gi0oue$jrh$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
>>> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>>the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>
>>>>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>>>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>>>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>>>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>>>required to make the comparison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>>>*need* much care.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You're assuming both use the same quality parts. I (and many others)
> don't share that perception.
I made no such assumption.
> Yes, all gas pumps, alternators, water pumps, etc will eventually fail.
> But, do they last 65k or 130k miles?
If you have some facts, present them. Otherwise it's just perceptions.
> It's been reported many times
> that GM tends to use lower quality parts to make up for their higher
> wage / benefits costs.
Yes they do. Mostly interior trim and other such things.
Nate Nagel
> lorad wrote:
>
>> PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
>> thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
>> Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
>> squawking.
>
> Who answers Powers' surveys? I posit that the 'average user' figures
> something is high-quality if it's nice-looking and lasts a year without
> problems.
>
Seeing as JD Power is an "initial quality" survey, that's about all they
*can* tell you. I'd like someone to run a survey on 10 or 20 year old
cars. Unfortunately the vehicles of most manufacturers bear little
resemblance to the models made 20 years ago, even under the skin. There
are some exceptions like VW (basic engine design dates back to 1973) but
not many.
Nate Nagel
Eh, not always. While the older Delco components were darn near
bulletproof and easily serviceable when they did fail, the post-12SI
series alternators were a nightmare and nowhere near as reliable as
their Bosch or Nippondenso competition. (now you can't find a "rebuild
kit" for a Bosch alternator at Pep Boys, and not anywhere inexpensively,
but it's hard to find same for an old 10SI/12SI these days as well.)
edward ohare
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
>understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
>it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
>don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
I'm still wondering how Honda covered up the broken engine block
issue... where the block broke where the mount bolt went into it. It
was commone enough Honda engineered a moogie foogie kit that didn't
require block replacement.
edward ohare
Don't buy a Big 3 vehicle in 2009?
Why not? They'll be real cheap at the bankruptcy sale.
edward ohare
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
>> American public does not need their products or companies as now
>> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
>> save a lot of money).
>
>Unfortunately, the tax man will take our money and give it to them anyway.
Actually not. The government will give them money but it will be up
to our grandchildren to pay it back. (Special appropriations with
borrowed money, and the fed debt is already $97,000 per houshold...
half of that accumulated the last 8 years).
Brent
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>> Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>>> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>>
>>> The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>>> quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>>> invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>>> (Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>>> that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>>> this time ... trust me.
>>
>> The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
>> its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
>> story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
>> than fact. There are still numerous oldsmobiles from GMs darkest time in
>> the early 80s roaming the roads in the chicago area but I haven't seen a
>> honda from that era in a very very long time, maybe a decade now.
>
> My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
> sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
So a dealer stole from her. I bet the engine wasn't even opened.
> The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work.
Sounds like it froze up from lack of use. Probably lube is all it needs.
I've repaired similiar issues in japanese cars getting on in age.
> The antenna-raising motor burned out.
20 years old and with few cycles on it. It may not even be burned out,
just stuck. someting went wrong with the power antenna on an '89 MX6 my
dad had... typical thing to fail in old cars too.
> The heater core rotted through.
That's quite common in cars that see 2 decades of service, even japanese
ones. (I replaced a heater core in a japan built mazda myself)
> The leather seats are cracking.
That tends to happen in 20 years if one hasn't taken good care of the
leather with the proper condintioners and cleaners.
> The AC has had serious service a couple of times.
AC doesn't like to sit. 58k miles in 20 years is hard on an AC system.
> There were other problems that she had to pay for in addition to
> quarterly "automatic" servicing, I just don't want to look through her
> receipts again -- I nearly cried the first time.
It sounds like the dealer was stealing from her.
> I'd call that piss poor and the blame is probably shared equally between
> the corrupt dealer and the manufacturer. Yet another case of wallet rape.
The car was taken to a corrupt dealer, they exist for all makes.
The car has issues typical of a 20 year old car of *ANY* make. But
because it's GM, it's a hunk of crap. That's my point. A honda beater
with with all the same issues is viewed by 'look, this car is 20 years
old and this all that's wrong with it'.
Brent
> Even if GM was able to provide a vehicle with equal (or even improved)
> quality as Honda, Toyota & Nissan, I suspect it will take generations
> before they'll be able to reverse their generally accepted reputation.
After all of this you agree, it is perceptions rather than facts that
are the driving factors.
Brent
>> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>> consider one.
>
> How about a Toyota Land Cruiser?
That would be a truck not a car.
> All I wanted to see was the specs, but
> the site insisted on showing me a lot of flashcrap instead so I'm not
> sure about the manual transmission or drive axle, but it has a V8.
That's because US marketing is about crap not technical things.
Dave
>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>> the long run.
>
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> required to make the comparison.
I'd guesstimate a Malibu is pretty close (like 95% or better) the quality of
an Accord or a Camry. Most Malibus, if properly cared for, will probably
last as long as their Jap-designed counterparts.
BUT, you NAILED IT when you asked how much of it is perception?
That's all that matters to a car buyer... PERCEIVED value. The Jap designs
have been murdering the "Detroit" designs for many years now, in PERCEIVED
value. That isn't likely to change anytime soon. -Dave
Dave
>
> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> *need* much care.
>
Have you ever owned a Malibu? I have. It doesn't *need* much care to keep
it running and looking good for many years. Same as a Camry or Accord.
But, as I wrote earlier, there is a perception that the Malibu is not as
good. -Dave
Nate Nagel
You forgot that at least the Camry is available with a manual
transmission. The Malibu, despite its roots as an Opel, is not. That
causes the PERCEPTION that GM doesn't care about car guys who want a
small 4-door sedan.
The Real Bev
Nate Nagel wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> lorad wrote:
>>
>>> PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
>>> thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
>>> Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
>>> squawking.
>> Who answers Powers' surveys? I posit that the 'average user' figures
>> something is high-quality if it's nice-looking and lasts a year without
>> problems.
>>
>
> Seeing as JD Power is an "initial quality" survey, that's about all they
> *can* tell you.
And people actually pay attention to that?
> I'd like someone to run a survey on 10 or 20 year old
> cars.
The Consumer Reports year-end guide gives ratings for older cars, but
they aren't all that informative -- "transmission" could be either a
minor adjustment or a complete rebuild.
Alan Baker
wrote:
> >
> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> > *need* much care.
> >
>
> Have you ever owned a Malibu? I have. It doesn't *need* much care to keep
> it running and looking good for many years. Same as a Camry or Accord.
Not even close. The build quality, the fit and finish, the quality of
components...
...all are inferior to a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.
>
> But, as I wrote earlier, there is a perception that the Malibu is not as
> good. -Dave
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except it's not anecdotal.
>
> >> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> >> consider one.
>
> > You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
>
> No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
> ignore.
Nope. Just trying to ignore that the S2000 is a better vehicle than
*any* american made RWD vehicle. Yes: including the Corvette.
Dave
>>
>> That's all that matters to a car buyer... PERCEIVED value. The Jap
>> designs have been murdering the "Detroit" designs for many years now, in
>> PERCEIVED value. That isn't likely to change anytime soon. -Dave
>
> You forgot that at least the Camry is available with a manual
> transmission. The Malibu, despite its roots as an Opel, is not. That
> causes the PERCEPTION that GM doesn't care about car guys who want a small
> 4-door sedan.
>
> nate
I'm a car guy who likes small 4-door sedans. I don't really care what the
tranny is, though it does make the household (read: WIFE) a bit happier if
the tranny is an automatic.
It would be nice for GM to offer a 5-speed manual in a Malibu. But GM does
offer a Malibu that 99% or more of GM potential customers would be quite
happy with. Hard to fault GM for giving the customers (the vast majority of
them anyway) what they want.
I for one would LOVE to drive a 5-speed Malibu sometime. :) Nothing wrong
with the automatic though. -Dave
The Real Bev
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, The Real Bev <bashle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
>> sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
>
> So a dealer stole from her. I bet the engine wasn't even opened.
The bastard kept it for 2 weeks and was wildly uninformative about the
reasons.
>> The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work.
>
> Sounds like it froze up from lack of use.
No, she used it quite a bit. The passenger can lock/unlock the driver's
side but the driver can't lock/unlock the passenger side. Clearly a
switch or a connection, but I'm not willing to take the door apart for a
little problem like that.
> Probably lube is all it needs.
> I've repaired similiar issues in japanese cars getting on in age.
Too much shigt is electric. I wonder if it's still possible to buy
all-manual cars (like they were Way Back When) with just
radio/heater/ac. The dumbest thing is the trunk lock, which requires a
$400 repair if somebody slams the trunk instead of easing it closed and
letting the mechanism take over. No, not me -- a friend's kid. There
is NO benefit derived with that stupid mechanism.
>> The antenna-raising motor burned out.
>
> 20 years old and with few cycles on it. It may not even be burned out,
> just stuck. someting went wrong with the power antenna on an '89 MX6 my
> dad had... typical thing to fail in old cars too.
Something stuck and it started making noise and smoking. I drove it to
the dealer who disconnected it, and my mom had it replaced the next time
she had it serviced.
>> The heater core rotted through.
>
> That's quite common in cars that see 2 decades of service, even japanese
> ones. (I replaced a heater core in a japan built mazda myself)
I shouldn'tt really complain about that, but I will anyway :-(
>
>> The leather seats are cracking.
>
> That tends to happen in 20 years if one hasn't taken good care of the
> leather with the proper condintioners and cleaners.
She took it in for top-drawer service every 3 months. If they didn't do
that, they should have for what they charged.
>> The AC has had serious service a couple of times.
>
> AC doesn't like to sit. 58k miles in 20 years is hard on an AC system.
She used it ALL the time. She frowned when I opened the windows on nice
days.
>> There were other problems that she had to pay for in addition to
>> quarterly "automatic" servicing, I just don't want to look through her
>> receipts again -- I nearly cried the first time.
>
> It sounds like the dealer was stealing from her.
All Cadillac dealers are crooks. Maybe ALL dealers are, but those are
the only ones with whom I have experience.
>> I'd call that piss poor and the blame is probably shared equally between
>> the corrupt dealer and the manufacturer. Yet another case of wallet rape.
>
> The car was taken to a corrupt dealer, they exist for all makes.
I had my suspicions.
> The car has issues typical of a 20 year old car of *ANY* make.
It's 20 years old NOW. The problems occurred long ago and long before
they should have.
> But
> because it's GM, it's a hunk of crap. That's my point. A honda beater
> with with all the same issues is viewed by 'look, this car is 20 years
> old and this all that's wrong with it'.
Yeah, but it's not touted as a top-of-the-line high-quality luxury
experience.
'nam vet.
edward ohare <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
some car manufacturers keep the repair codes secret. like only
authorized dealers can fix your car.
be aware ! be very aware !
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.
The Real Bev
Then we can hardly blame the Big 3 for catering to crap-choosing buyers,
can we? You point your marketing strategy at the likeliest victims, right?
BikeFan
conspiracy to kill the Unions? Have they opened their books to PROVE
to Congress that they are busted?
--
BikeFan
To the GOP, Neocons and Bush from Oliver Cromwell:
"You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing.
Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Eeyore
Rod Speed wrote:
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Perception is the game these days
>
> Like hell it is. The reality these days is that any decently designed car
> will last for decades with no maintenance whatever apart from tyres etc.
A little more than just tyres maybe. Brake discs / rotors, pads and shoes, windscreen wipers,
fluids, a change of good synthetic oil every 12,000 mi, miscellaneous oddball bits. Don't forget
the exhaust if not stainless.
But yes, you are fundamentally right. I've had no trouble getting 180k mi out of European cars. And
they were still basically decent runners at that point.
Graham
clams_casino
No - I thought I was quite clear stating I was completely WRONG using
the word "perception".
Substitute "belief". A few seem to be believe (perception?) that GM is
making high quality vehicles, equal to better than their competition.
Many more "believe" they make inferior quality vehicles. The facts are
that they have been producing lower quality products for many years, as
strongly indicated by their 50% loss of market over perhaps 25 years.
They have a (well earned) reputation for inferior quality that will take
generations to overcome, assuming they are currently capable of
producing vehicles..
Then again, my point all along has been that it really doesn't matter
whether GM is able to produce vehicles of similar quality as their
competition. Most just aren't believing it's different ... this
time. There is a slim chance they might be, but one won't really know
for at least 10, maybe 20 years. Fewer and fewer are / will be willing
to take that remote chance.
clams_casino
>clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>
>>the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned
>>
>>
>
>It wasn't even justified ! Or do you still believe the lies ?
>
>Graham
>
>
>
Never did.
Brent
> You forgot that at least the Camry is available with a manual
> transmission. The Malibu, despite its roots as an Opel, is not. That
> causes the PERCEPTION that GM doesn't care about car guys who want a
> small 4-door sedan.
That's not a perception, that's a fact. GM doesn't care about car guys
who want a small 4-door sedan. Or any sedan with an MT. To their
marketeers the only reason for an MT is because the buyer is 'cheap'.
Brent
So present your data. Hint: owners filling out serveys is just a lot of
anecdotes.
>> >> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>> >> consider one.
>>
>> > You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
>>
>> No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
>> ignore.
> Nope. Just trying to ignore that the S2000 is a better vehicle than
> *any* american made RWD vehicle. Yes: including the Corvette.
LOl. it might be a good car in the roller skate class as I call it, but
I don't fit in those cars. Not enough leg room to operate a clutch
comfortably and my head is above the windscreen. As to being "better"
than a vette, that's like saying oranges are better than apples.
Brent
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-13, The Real Bev <bashle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
>>> sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
>>
>> So a dealer stole from her. I bet the engine wasn't even opened.
>
> The bastard kept it for 2 weeks and was wildly uninformative about the
> reasons.
>
>>> The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work.
>>
>> Sounds like it froze up from lack of use.
> No, she used it quite a bit. The passenger can lock/unlock the driver's
> side but the driver can't lock/unlock the passenger side. Clearly a
> switch or a connection, but I'm not willing to take the door apart for a
> little problem like that.
In the driveway? Even in my car there were some issues with the power
locks when the car sat most of the winter. Since I drive it in the
winter again there aren't any. Anyway these sort of little problems are
not unusual for a 20 year old car anyone's 20 year old car.
>> Probably lube is all it needs.
>> I've repaired similiar issues in japanese cars getting on in age.
> Too much shigt is electric. I wonder if it's still possible to buy
> all-manual cars (like they were Way Back When) with just
> radio/heater/ac. The dumbest thing is the trunk lock, which requires a
> $400 repair if somebody slams the trunk instead of easing it closed and
> letting the mechanism take over. No, not me -- a friend's kid. There
> is NO benefit derived with that stupid mechanism.
Manual windows and what not start to have wierd malfunctions when they
cross the 15 year mark too. I've delt with them too... on japanese cars.
>> That tends to happen in 20 years if one hasn't taken good care of the
>> leather with the proper condintioners and cleaners.
> She took it in for top-drawer service every 3 months. If they didn't do
> that, they should have for what they charged.
These are the same people who have been ripping her off for years, I
doubt they went through the effort to treat the leather.
> Yeah, but it's not touted as a top-of-the-line high-quality luxury
> experience.
So was the cimmeron but dressing up a cavalier didn't make it so.
clams_casino
>
>
>Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
>perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
>
>
Don't know of any. I do, however, know many who will likely never
again consider a GM product.
Rather than go by yours of my experience, go by all the surveys. I
admittedly was very slow to consider the surveys. It wasn't until 2000
that I finally made the switch. I'm on my third since and when I look
back, question why it took so long.
>>It's hard to find many disgruntled owners of civics & Accords.
>>
>>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=accord+lemon
>
>Rather easy actually.
>
>
Hmm - the first leased four Hondas. Obviously he liked the first three
enough to get a fourth. All the responders had contradictory experience
- most stating minimal problems, even after 25 years.
It is interesting to read about some disgruntled owners. If I hadn't
read / heard from so many pleased owners I might not have bought my
first one. In reality my three have performed every bit up to my
expectations plus there's been another eight years where I'm aware of
numerous others who are only too glad to report the same. On the other
hand I'm not aware of too many GM owners who haven't already dumped
their vehicles purchased since that time.
>
>Reputation based on perceptions, not facts.
>
>
>
Only in your mind and perhaps a portion of the ever decreasing numbers
willing to own a GM, Ford or Chrysler product.
I'm sure there will always be a percentage that will buy a GM, Ford or
Chrysler product, just as there will always be a percentage that believe
GW has done a favorable job.
Hell, I'm even told there are some people actually admit to liking
country western music.
Brent
> some car manufacturers keep the repair codes secret. like only
> authorized dealers can fix your car.
> be aware ! be very aware !
There's this thing called the internet, there really aren't any secrets
for very long. There are geeks for every product who end up with the
knowledge either because they figured it out or because they know
someone on the inside. They then post it.
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-13, The Real Bev <bashle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>>>> consider one.
>>> How about a Toyota Land Cruiser?
>>
>> That would be a truck not a car.
>>
>>> All I wanted to see was the specs, but
>>> the site insisted on showing me a lot of flashcrap instead so I'm not
>>> sure about the manual transmission or drive axle, but it has a V8.
>>
>> That's because US marketing is about crap not technical things.
>
> Then we can hardly blame the Big 3 for catering to crap-choosing buyers,
> can we? You point your marketing strategy at the likeliest victims, right?
Ever go look at foreign websites? The Aussie ford website (at least it
used to) put the domestic ford website to shame on technical info.
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Even if GM was able to provide a vehicle with equal (or even improved)
>>>quality as Honda, Toyota & Nissan, I suspect it will take generations
>>>before they'll be able to reverse their generally accepted reputation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>After all of this you agree, it is perceptions rather than facts that
>>are the driving factors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> No - I thought I was quite clear stating I was completely WRONG using
> the word "perception".
> Substitute "belief". A few seem to be believe (perception?) that GM is
> making high quality vehicles, equal to better than their competition.
reputation is a belief is a perception.
> Many more "believe" they make inferior quality vehicles. The facts are
> that they have been producing lower quality products for many years, as
> strongly indicated by their 50% loss of market over perhaps 25 years.
facts. where are these facts ?
Ferraris have a reputation for needing lots and lots of work to keep
going. One can point to the factory recommended service intervals and
what work is required to do it to show that the reputation is based in
fact. Care to do the same for GM?
Or are we going to get owner 'experiences'? which takes us right back to
perceptions.
clams_casino
Not willing to take a chance. I did own one back in the 70's - real
piece of crap, but admittedly the technology was quite different at that
time.
After a series of mediocre GM, Ford & Chrysler cars followed by three
excellent performing Honda vehicles, it would be foolish to take a
chance on a GM product.
Actually, I did rent a Malibu last year. I didn't have any mechanical
problems during the week I drove it, but it did run like crap - comfort
/ noise couldn't compare with my 2000 Accord even at 180K miles.
Granted, it was a rental, but it did drive pretty much as I expected it
would.
clams_casino
>lorad wrote:
>
>
>
>>The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
>>governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
>>ching).
>>
>>
>
>Not sure that's true actually. Certainly for US made Hondas Nissans and
>Toyotas. Anyway, nothing stopping the USA doing the same ! Universal
>health care is a fraction of the cost of private btw.
>
>Graham
>
>
>
Honda has been assembling cars in MD since 1982.
lorad
Asian auto-maker propaganda [snipped]
Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
The PRIMARY reason that the US economy is failing is due to the
reduction of US manufacturing capability which results in fewer
exports and more imports over the last 15 years.
The US's wealth has been drained away.
If we lose the auto industry in America, we also lose 1/7th of all US
jobs.
Think about that.
The wall-street giveaway of 800 BILLION to a crook business sector
might keep the house of cards aloft (and the super-rich richer) for a
year or two... but ultimately matters will become EVEN WORSE when that
money runs out.
We will never solve our current economic problem by shuffling paper
and pretending that paper shuffling actually creates wealth.. it
doesn't.. it just re-distributes wealth upward to a select few.
America needs to re-industrialize itself. It's the only way out.
And there's no time start but NOW.. and by saving the US auto
industry.
Brent
>
>>
>>
>>Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
>>perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
>>
>>
>
> Don't know of any.
Google around.
> I do, however, know many who will likely never again consider a GM product.
Sure, I won't consider any GM car not a corvette or holden because of
two cars my parents had so I am in that camp too. GM has had a lot more
years and a lot more cars to damage itself.
> Rather than go by yours of my experience, go by all the surveys.
So you just go by a bunch of perceptions and personal experiences.
> I
> admittedly was very slow to consider the surveys. It wasn't until 2000
> that I finally made the switch. I'm on my third since and when I look
> back, question why it took so long.
You've had 3 cars since 2000? Holy crap. I've had the same ford since
1996.
>>http://www.google.com/search?q=accord+lemon
>>
>>Rather easy actually.
> Hmm - the first leased four Hondas. Obviously he liked the first three
> enough to get a fourth. All the responders had contradictory experience
> - most stating minimal problems, even after 25 years.
So he had 25% failure rate. You'll see the exact same thing in ford and
GM forums too.
> It is interesting to read about some disgruntled owners. If I hadn't
> read / heard from so many pleased owners I might not have bought my
> first one. In reality my three have performed every bit up to my
> expectations plus there's been another eight years where I'm aware of
> numerous others who are only too glad to report the same. On the other
> hand I'm not aware of too many GM owners who haven't already dumped
> their vehicles purchased since that time.
It's just about listening to the personal experiences are own biases
weight one way or the other. This really isn't a fact based analysis,
it's touchy feely sort of thing
>>Reputation based on perceptions, not facts.
> Only in your mind and perhaps a portion of the ever decreasing numbers
> willing to own a GM, Ford or Chrysler product.
I guess you don't know what a reputation is. It's quite possible to have
one reputation but be the exact opposite. Reputation is how others
perceive you.
Nate Nagel
IMHO the GM factory recommended services are woefully inadequate. One
should follow the "severe service" intervals for any American car. The
mfgrs. like to lowball the service required so that they look good in
"long term comparison tests" but the truth is that only doing the
recommended services virtually ensures a finite lifespan and/or costly
repairs. I don't believe any US mfgr. recommends regular brake fluid
changes but if you don't do it you risk expensive failures of brake
components at around 10 years or so (including ABS/TC components which
may approach the depreciated value of the car in replacement cost.)
lorad
(bumped up)
Nate Nagel
I'd consider it, but my local mechanic tells me he has all the business
he can handle, so I don't feel the need to help him out.
Matthew Russotto
SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>from what ive read, theyre asking for "loan guarantees". no one said
>jack squat when the bankers flew to DC in THEIR jets and walked away
>with $700B.
You must have missed all the screaming and the failure of the first vote
on the bailout package.
>And then when they GOT it, they promptly gave each other
>bonuses and vacation retreats for the "job well done".
Actually that was AIG, which got a separate deal. Personally I think
they need to be sent to a retreat in Leavenworth, KS...
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Matthew Russotto
clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>SoCalMike wrote:
>
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively
>>> expensive investment.
>>
>>
>> cars are NEVER an investment. theyre appliances.
>
>Agreed. I was using that term loosely. Relatively expensive
>"expenditure" would probably have been a better description considering
>they are most always a (money) losing "investment".
Cars are durable goods, like large appliances. Unless they're from GM
or Chrysler.
Rod Speed
>>> Perception is the game these days
>> Like hell it is. The reality these days is that any decently designed car
>> will last for decades with no maintenance whatever apart from tyres etc.
> A little more than just tyres maybe.
The word etc was included for a reason.
> Brake discs / rotors, pads and shoes,
You wouldnt necessarily need any of those in a single decade, particularly with normal mileage.
> windscreen wipers, fluids,
Those were obviously included in the etc.
> a change of good synthetic oil every 12,000 mi,
You can get away with not bothering with that with an OHC engine.
> miscellaneous oddball bits.
There arent any of those with a properly designed car.
> Don't forget the exhaust if not stainless.
Thats covered by the properly designed.
> But yes, you are fundamentally right. I've had no trouble getting 180k mi out of European cars.
Me too, kraut cars in my case.
> And they were still basically decent runners at that point.
Yep, the only reason I replaced the Golf after 35+ years was because I was stupid
enough to not do anything about the known windscreen rubber leak with a car that
had never seen a home garage in its entire life which eventually rusted the floor.
Only did a couple of very minor repairs, one alternator regulator, one distributor button, one petrol hose replacement.
Didnt ever bother to change the oil at all and it didnt give a damn.
Dave
"lorad" <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1632a96d-2982-4282...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Asian auto-maker propaganda [snipped]
>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile.
OK, I'll go buy a 2009 Toyota Camry. I'll get my wife a 2009 Acura RDX.
I'll buy my son a 2009 Hyundai Sonata. All made with pride by U.S. workers
in U.S. factories. :) -Dave
The Real Bev
>
>>> You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
>> No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
>> ignore.
>
> Nope. Just trying to ignore that the S2000 is a better vehicle than
> *any* american made RWD vehicle. Yes: including the Corvette.
I thought that the Corvette was thought to be cheaply made and that the
Camaro was an even cheaper version. Still, Camaros strike some chord
deep within my soul...
clams_casino
>
>
>You've had 3 cars since 2000? Holy crap. I've had the same ford since
>1996.
>
We average over 30k miles/ year.
My newest car - 2005 Pilot just hit 95k. Next year will be the
expensive year. I'll need to replace the original tires plus replace
the timing gear & water pump as recommended along with a 105k tune-up, etc.
Other than gas, oil changes & routine Honda servicing at 30k and 60k
miles, my only repair expenses so far have been $15 to repair a flat,
three sets of windshield wipers and perhaps $4 for window wash.
The 2000 Accord is still running very well at 180k - still running a
second set of tires, one brake change, one alternator change, one gas &
water pump change and two headlight replacements plus one pollution
device repair / replacement. We briefly owned a 2004 Pilot for nearly
a year when it was declared totaled after a drunk 16 year old (
licensed for two weeks) hit it 45 degrees head on while it was parked
(legally / unoccupied) on the street. His Ford Explorer was also
declared totaled. He rammed it across the granite curbing which
collapsed the four wheel assemblies and into two cars parked in a
driveway, damaging the side & back as it was spun around & sandwiched
between the cars.
My previous vehicles included a 1984 Caravan that required two
transmissions before I junked it at 120k (amongst other problems) when a
third one was needed, a 1986 GMC van that went through a set of tires
every 25k miles due to poor alignment (and numerous short circuit
problems), which had to be junked at 125k since it would not pass state
pollution testing without extensive engine repair and a 1994 Chrysler
Lebrun convertible which I still own at 105k that required $2k in
repairs this past year and $1k in 2007. It's my fun car - used only
about 4k miles / year in recent years, primarily in the summer. The $3K
is much more than I've put into the three Honda cars, but considering it
is 15 years old, I can accept the fact that some repairs are age rather
than mileage related (new belts, hoses, etc).
Yes, I have owned a number of cars.
clams_casino
>So was the cimmeron but dressing up a cavalier didn't make it so.
>
>
>
>
Owned an 82 Cavalier wagon. Steering went out at 52k, at which time I
learned that it was covered by a recall only until 50k. Engine died at
85k - only 4 cylinder I ever owned. Mileage was poor from what I
recall, although it wasn't as bad as the 8 mpg I averaged in my 74 Ford
Torino. That had a 27.5 gallon tank. Otherwise, I'd probably have had
to fill it up every other day. Actually put over 26 gallons into it one
cold morning during the gas rationing.. It had the famous Firestone
tires that failed by 20k miles (radials ate through the side walls).
Unfortunately, Ford didn't have a recall until six months later and
would only replace them pay) if the originals were made available. So
much for being a high mileage driver. So much for Firestone products -
and yes, I enjoyed seeing them go bankrupt.
clams_casino
>
>If we lose the auto industry in America, we also lose 1/7th of all US
>jobs.
>Think about that.
>
>
I am - Does that include all the US plants run by Honda, Toyota, BMW,
Mercedes, etc? Does that figure also include all the car dealers who
provide more jobs than the car companies?
Does that assume all production will go overseas and no one will be
driving (buying cars) in the US?
Sounds like propaganda to me.
edward ohare
<george...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
>In article <03c8k41i1u31md3dk...@4ax.com>,
> edward ohare <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:20:34 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Don't buy a Big 3 vehicle in 2009?
>>
>> Why not? They'll be real cheap at the bankruptcy sale.
>
>some car manufacturers keep the repair codes secret. like only
>authorized dealers can fix your car.
>be aware ! be very aware !
Someone will buy the repair information at the bankruptcy sale. And
parts that they'll sell. Etc.
Daniel T.
> On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> If we lose the auto industry in America, we also lose 1/7th of all US
> jobs.
> Think about that.
Really? How do you figure that? What does "losing the auto industry"
even mean?
Harold Burton
wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed....
I've been teaching GM, Ford, and Chrysler that for over 30 years. They
sold me shit twice and I've been telling them to fuck off ever since.
Thank you Honda and Toyota for providing quality products. That's why I
keep buying from them rather than the "big 3 (soon to the be small 3)".
Harold Burton
edward ohare <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:20:34 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Don't buy a Big 3 vehicle in 2009?
>
> Why not? They'll be real cheap at the bankruptcy sale.
Not in the long run.
Alan Baker
The Real Bev <bashle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >>> You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
> >> No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
> >> ignore.
> >
> > Nope. Just trying to ignore that the S2000 is a better vehicle than
> > *any* american made RWD vehicle. Yes: including the Corvette.
>
> I thought that the Corvette was thought to be cheaply made and that the
> Camaro was an even cheaper version. Still, Camaros strike some chord
> deep within my soul...
Early Lotuses strike a chord with me...
...but it doesn't mean that they weren't POS when it came to quality.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
<1632a96d-2982-4282...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
lorad <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
Instead of doing that, just give me $20.
That will keep your money in the local economy, too, right?