Strategy for combatting planned obsolescence in cars?
Andy Breeding
As my old car dies I look unhappily on the prospect of buying a new one.
The cost of keeping it alive is just too much. A while ago I saw a
statistic which asserted that buying a new car today takes a bigger
proportion of our earnings than in years past. This gets me thinking about
planned obsolescence in the auto industry. Wasn't Alfred Sloan from GM the
guy who invented the concept? Why can't the car industry:
-Make cars that *really* last?
-Design cars to be replaced piece by piece with
easily obtainable, reasonably priced parts?
My guess is that it isn't in their economic interests to do so, however much
it might make sense from an environmental or consumer standpoint.
So I ask:
*Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
this ideal?
*Will the car industry ever strive for this ideal?
I know I'm opening a can of worms, but your input would be appreciated.
Andy Breeding bree...@search.dec.com
Chris Cooke
>
> *Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
> this ideal?
In Britain I suppose a Land Rover would be the thing - lots of
ancient Landies are chugging around rural areas, often with
random bits of sheet metal welded on to keep them together.
Parts might be expensive in the USA though.
--
-- Chris. c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (on Janet, c...@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
Peter Chrzanowski
> planned obsolescence in the auto industry. Wasn't Alfred Sloan from GM the
> guy who invented the concept?
Alfred Sloan, former marketing man and CEO of GM, developed the annual
model change and the concept of "perpetual upgrading" of cars. At the
beginning of his tenure at GM, Ford sold twice as many cars as GM; by
1940 GM and Ford had traded market shares.
Sloan's concept of planned obsolescence has to do with psychology and
marketing, not product durability. The idea is to make you unhappy
with your present car because it is out-of-style (looks old, even if
in like-new condition) and because it lacks features.
Cars today are probably made more durable than they have to be. That is,
many people really don't care if the car lasts over 5 years/75,000 miles
because they don't expect to keep it longer than that. That is, I doubt
that many customers would be willing to pay significantly extra for extra
durability -- esp. given that you'd have to maintain the thing carefully
in order to get it.
Finally, keep in mind that there's no point in building a 500,000 mile
engine if the body rusts after 6 years.
Gary Coffman
>
>So I ask:
>
>*Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
> this ideal?
Basically buy the most popular car on the market and shop the junkyard for
replacement parts, there will be many from low mileage wrecks that are
available cheap. Volkswagon Beetles had the nice feature that parts
interchanged model year to model year giving an enormous junkyard supply.
Chevy small block V8s have been around since 1955 and any car that uses
one will have a ready supply of spare parts. Low volume specialty cars
are the worst to maintain. Parts availability and price is usually sky
high.
>*Will the car industry ever strive for this ideal?
Probably not. There is enormous profit in the aftermarket and yearly
model changes and technical developments make long term cars a rarity.
Would you really want to buy a new 1974 Chevy today?
Gary
Don T. Borowski
I know that I will get lots of flames for this, but, on the average, I think
that the auto industry in general is making cars that *really* last. Some of
this is old stuff, some is new. Before 1960 or so, it was not uncommon for the
rings to wear out on an engine before 75,000 miles. Most engines can now make
it to 150,000 miles with normal maintainance (flame suit on: Yeh, not all do).
Transmissions often last the life of the engine, especially manuals.
In the last several years, the auto makes have made great strides in body life
through the the use of galivinized metal and plastics.
The industry isn't there yet, but is working towards 100,000 miles warrantees.
In order not the go broke at it, the cars must be designed to have very few
problems up to 100,000 miles. This means that most should be able to go to
150,000 miles or more before they start having problems.
Note that the most of the older cars on the road are there by virtue of the
TLC that their owners have lavished on them, not that they were very long
lived. After all, most of those older cars have long since been scrapped.
My rules for long car life:
1. Learn to work on it yourself.
2. Buy something that is relatively simple and serviceable (I chose a '81
diesel Rabbit).
3. Buy something that is rather common so that there will be a long life for
repair parts and a good aftermarket.
4. Fix whatever goes wrong right away. Don't wait for repairs to pile up.
5. Park you car in a garage when not in use, not in the weather.
6. Learn to work on it yourself.
Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
-G.K. Chesterton
Tom Chatt
| Why can't the car industry:
|
| -Make cars that *really* last?
|
| -Design cars to be replaced piece by piece with
| easily obtainable, reasonably priced parts?
Who says that cars don't "really last"? There are certainly
examples of cars that have, with appropriate repairs, replacement,
and rebuilding, lasted for years and hundreds of thousands of miles.
This is not the typical experience, because the vast majority of
people simply don't want to keep a car that long.
Your gripe boils down to: "Why can't I afford to maintain my car?"
You complain that the parts are not easily obtainable and "reasonably"
priced. If you think about it, the availability and price of the parts
you want is probably quite commensurate to the cost of manufacturing
them given the low demand for them.
Fact of life: Not many people are interested in maintaining the same
car for much more than five years. Thus, not much demand for the parts.
Low volume implies higher manufacturing costs, and it is
senseless to expect every corner service station to inventory all of
the parts you might want. This is compounded by the fact that
car designs (and the parts that go in them) are not unchanging
over time.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that technology advances
and car models are continually updated. Why would you *want* to
maintain a 20-year old piece of technology when present-day cars
are much more efficient? Another or year or two, and electric cars
will be coming out in production. Are you going to *still* be
driving that '71 Pontiac?
Industry produces what consumers demand. The product is shaped by
what people will buy, and the price is shaped by how many people
want to buy it. Simple economics.
--
Tom Chatt \ Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: t...@flood.com \ Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom / \ we oppress ourselves.
Dan Flak
> *Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
> this ideal?
Go buy a very popular make and model. I kept my '66 Ford Falcon
running for 15 years. In the latter years, I was able to find
spare parts in almost any junk yard.
Some parts (hoses, starters, pumps, etc) stay standard. It's more
economical to build cars using standard parts, and if a lot of
cars have these standard parts, then more vendors make these
parts, which drives down the price, making it more economical to
build cars using standard parts ...
I think the American auto industry will have to start designing
cars with parts replacement in mind (even to the point where a
specific part may be used in a Chevy, or Ford, or Jeep, etc.).
That's what the Japanese are doing with their suppliers. Rather
than fight each other over who has the best proprietary design,
they co-operate. I know, I've also spent some time in Japanese
junk yards as well :-).
--
Almost anything is easier to get into than to get out of.
Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: flak%mc...@nwnexus.wa.com)
John DeArmond
>As my old car dies I look unhappily on the prospect of buying a new one.
>The cost of keeping it alive is just too much. A while ago I saw a
>statistic which asserted that buying a new car today takes a bigger
>proportion of our earnings than in years past.
Sorry just the other way around. Back in the "glory days" when cars
cost 2-3000 dollars, people's annual salary averaged in the same range.
Today an econobox costs perhaps 8 thousand dollars but the person buying
it is likely to have a salary - assuming a skilled worker - of at least
the mid twentys. Plus one can finance the car for just about forever.
Buying a car has never been less painful. And this does not even take
into account the vastly lower maintenance required of modern cars.
>This gets me thinking about
>planned obsolescence in the auto industry. Wasn't Alfred Sloan from GM the
>guy who invented the concept? Why can't the car industry:
> -Make cars that *really* last?
They do. My 4 15 year old cars (Datsun Z cars and an El Camino) and my
10 year old car (BMW) have lasted quite well.
> -Design cars to be replaced piece by piece with
> easily obtainable, reasonably priced parts?
They already are. Or do you regard "reasonably priced" to mean giveaways.
Compare the manufacturing cost of say, a carburator and a 9600 baud modem -
two items that are roughly equal in replacement cost. The carburator
requires everything from foundry services to electronics assembly.
Instead of talking about cheap electronics people should talk about
cheap auto parts.
>My guess is that it isn't in their economic interests to do so, however much
>it might make sense from an environmental or consumer standpoint.
But it's the same consumers cum environazis who bemoan the complexity
and expense of modern cars out of one side of their mouths while demanding
sterile exhaust and federally mandated 100 mpg from the other. Cars
reparable with a screwdriver and a cresent wrench are surely doable - but
they'll fume a bit and get bad gas mileage.
>So I ask:
>*Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
> this ideal?
Easy. Read your flavor of car magazine reviews - anything from Consumer
Reports to Car & Driver - and pick the car that fits your needs the best.
If you don't want to spend the money on maintenance then learn how to
do the work yourself. If you want parts practically free then get prepared
to skulk around the junkyards and remove your own replacement parts. Don't
like to pay $200 for an alternator installed? Pay $20 for one from a
junkyard, remove it yourself and install it yourself in your car.
As they say, "they just ain't no free lunches."
>*Will the car industry ever strive for this ideal?
You'd better hope not. By one estimation 6 out of 10 people are employed
in one manner or the other by the auto and support industries. If they
achieve your ideal (a car for free that runs forever) a lot of us will be
out of work.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Radiation Systems, Inc. Marietta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!kd4nc!wd4oqc **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
Brian E. Hannon
t...@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes:
> Another or year or two, and electric cars
> will be coming out in production.
Electric cars are already here! A number of small companies, including
Solectria, are already producing solar and electric automobiles at
competitive prices with the rest of the fossil industry. What you
should have said is that in another year or two, the big three will be
producing electric and hybrid vehicles.
And just another sideline: Due to the simplicity of the average
electric motor, electric cars should outlast the average gasoline
automobiles by at least 300,000 miles. Go Electric!
bri
Greg Trimper
> Why can't the car industry:
> -Make cars that *really* last?
> -Design cars to be replaced piece by piece with
> easily obtainable, reasonably priced parts?
It can. Most don't want to. I often think of the amount of resources that
are wasted when a car "dies." A lot of the metal and glass and oil just
get heaped up in yards, not to mention the upholstery, foam in seats,
etc. BUT, if cars didn't die, new cars wouldn't sell.
>My guess is that it isn't in their economic interests to do so, however much
>it might make sense from an environmental or consumer standpoint.
>So I ask:
>*Where can I find a car with easily replaceable parts that comes closest to
> this ideal?
I have an 85 Toyota Celica GT-S that amazes me. It has 116k miles,
gets about 38mpg on the highway, 27 city, is very nice and comfortable,
and has an amazingly low upkeep cost for a car it's age and mileage, esp.
when compared to an american car. I traded in a 78 Celica that had
168k miles on it, and the only problem it had when I traded it in was
that the body had rusted away (have to love Wisconsin winters). Mechanically
it was still perfect, and managed to get about 30mpg on the highway. Most
of the 4cylinder small toyotas seem to share this economy/durability/
etc. Unlike Chevy Cavaliers, which seem to fall apart at 40k, like
most other American cars.
The only American cars that I have seen as well built and durable as
70-80's Toyotas are the late 60's Camaros and Mustangs. But that could
be the special interest of people that have kept them maintained.
The 70's seem to be full of lemon cars. Chrysler Newports. Novas
and Delta 88's with bad paint. Pintos that blew up. Nightmares. Those
were the days of Big Car American Wastefulness.
>*Will the car industry ever strive for this ideal?
American Industry? Doubt it. So little real pride in the product,
accompanied by such a huge drive for profit, and an extremely overpaid
workforce, a la Auto Unions, just does not make for an urge towards
making products that don't sell often, as they were built too well.
All this, of course, is just my opinion.
Greg Trimper Tri...@ok.here.come.the.union.and.pro-american.and.
toyota.and.god.knows.whatever.other.flames.just.you.
wait.and.see
John McCarthy
$250, so a Ford worker had to work 50 days to buy a Ford car. The
last time I calculated, a Ford worker had to work somewhat longer
to buy a Ford car, but the Ford car in question was enormously
better than a Model T. My conjecture is that the ratio is
sociologically determined rather than technololgically determined.
If workers, including Ford workers, were better paid, they'd buy
fancier cars rather than buy the same cars for fewer day's work.
I'll bet you have to get very high in the income scale before
people have less than 50 days work invested in the cars they own.
--
"There's not a woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to
animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29."
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Brett Kottmann
> In 1916 a Ford worker was paid $5 per day, and a Model T Ford cost
> $250, so a Ford worker had to work 50 days to buy a Ford car. The
> last time I calculated, a Ford worker had to work somewhat longer
> to buy a Ford car, but the Ford car in question was enormously
> better than a Model T. My conjecture is that the ratio is
> sociologically determined rather than technololgically determined.
> If workers, including Ford workers, were better paid, they'd buy
> fancier cars rather than buy the same cars for fewer day's work.
> I'll bet you have to get very high in the income scale before
> people have less than 50 days work invested in the cars they own.
The typical hourly worker, with typical overtime, averages about $16-
$20/hour. That means they have to work 50-60 days to earn $8000, or the price
of a low-end auto.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)
(BTW-my wife, an Engineer at GM, has this to say about hourly workers:
"Let them work harder if you want them to earn more money!" She's not exactly
happy with the productivity of the hourly worker :)
Brett
=============================OFFICIAL=DISCLAIMER================================
The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors.
=====================DO=NOT=REMOVE=TAG=UNDER=PENALTY=OF=LAW===:)================
Gary Coffman
>
>And just another sideline: Due to the simplicity of the average
>electric motor, electric cars should outlast the average gasoline
>automobiles by at least 300,000 miles. Go Electric!
1) The batteries won't.
2) The body won't.
3) The running gear won't.
4) The interior won't.
5) The steering gear won't.
6) Etc.
You'll wind up with a perfect electric motor in a totally shot car.
Don't expect an electric car to last beyond the average 200,000 miles
of a conventionally powered car. Depending on where it gets it's
electricity, it may be marginally less polluting on a global scale
and much less polluting on a local scale. It will be of limited range
and performance. And when it gets in mass use and the politicians realize
all the motor fuel tax they are losing, it won't be cheaper to operate
either. Still, it may be a marginally good idea in some places right
now for specialized uses. And it may be a great idea if batteries get
much better and the electricity isn't generated by combustion.
Gary
tim...@public.btr.com
|j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
|> In 1916 a Ford worker was paid $5 per day, and a Model T Ford cost
|> $250, so a Ford worker had to work 50 days to buy a Ford car. The
|> last time I calculated, a Ford worker had to work somewhat longer
|> to buy a Ford car, but the Ford car in question was enormously
|> better than a Model T. My conjecture is that the ratio is
|> sociologically determined rather than technololgically determined.
|> If workers, including Ford workers, were better paid, they'd buy
|> fancier cars rather than buy the same cars for fewer day's work.
|> I'll bet you have to get very high in the income scale before
|> people have less than 50 days work invested in the cars they own.
|
| The typical hourly worker, with typical overtime, averages about $16-
|$20/hour. That means they have to work 50-60 days to earn $8000, or the price
|of a low-end auto.
|
| The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)
Not quite. Today's hourly worker also contends with income taxes,
so s/he must work somewhat more than 50-60 days to earn enough to
buy a car.
Marty O'Donnell
>bree...@search.dec.com (Andy Breeding) writes:
>
>>As my old car dies I look unhappily on the prospect of buying a new one.
>>The cost of keeping it alive is just too much. A while ago I saw a
>>statistic which asserted that buying a new car today takes a bigger
>>proportion of our earnings than in years past.
>
>Sorry just the other way around. Back in the "glory days" when cars
>cost 2-3000 dollars, people's annual salary averaged in the same range.
No, the everage wage around 1970, when cars cost about that much, was
much more than $2K-$3K.
The number of weeks the average wage earner in the US has to work to buy
the average priced car has been increasing for years.
<deletions>
>You'd better hope not. By one estimation 6 out of 10 people are employed
>in one manner or the other by the auto and support industries. If they
>achieve your ideal (a car for free that runs forever) a lot of us will be
>out of work.
The 6 out of 10 figure is way out of line. The typical figure given during
the peak of the US auto industry is 1 in 6. Today it is much less.
--
Marty O'Donnell ma...@qms.com
contracted to Siemens Quantum, Inc. 206/391-1272
"Ask forgiveness, not permission."
Lawrence H. Miller
>bkot...@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>|j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
About the typical hourly worker, and in fact most workers, averaging
50-60 days invested in their car.
I just took by annual salary and divided by the number of work days in a
year and multiplied by 60. Lo and behold, I came out with the exact amount,
virtually to the dollar, of the cars and price range I've been looing at!
--
Larry Miller
The Aerospace Corporation
lmi...@aero.org
310-336-5597
Andy Breeding
In article <1991Nov8.1...@tellab5.tellabs.com>, ch...@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes...
>Cars today are probably made more durable than they have to be. That is,
>many people really don't care if the car lasts over 5 years/75,000 miles
>because they don't expect to keep it longer than that.
For those people keeping up with the Joneses (and the occasional true
innovation) yes. I, however, count myself among the people that would like
to see my car last significantly longer than 250,000 miles.
>That is, I doubt
>that many customers would be willing to pay significantly extra for extra
>durability -- esp. given that you'd have to maintain the thing carefully
>in order to get it.
I would, if in the long term, the cost was less and the process less
inherently wasteful.
>
>Finally, keep in mind that there's no point in building a 500,000 mile
>engine if the body rusts after 6 years.
True. What we need is corrosion free body parts, or at the very least
easily replaceable, available, reasonably priced body parts. While this
might be technically possible the car companies won't do it because they'd
rather sell you a new car...
P.S. Thanks for the detail on Alfred Sloan..
Andy Breeding bree...@search.dec.com
Andy Breeding
In article <1991Nov9.0...@flood.com>, t...@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes...
>Who says that cars don't "really last"? There are certainly
>examples of cars that have, with appropriate repairs, replacement,
>and rebuilding, lasted for years and hundreds of thousands of miles.
True. And the cost and effort required is too great for most people to
bother. Can the car companies make this process easier, though?
(provided they wanted to) I wonder which car companies are the best at this
sort of thing?
Andy Breeding bree...@search.dec.com
Richard P. Muller
was wondering if anyone has any experience with the long-term affects
of vinyl and leather cleaners such as Armor All. I'm concerned that
the cleaning product might crack the leather or vinyl after a year or
so of use, or that the product might build up on the leather or vinyl.
Any help would be appreciated.
Ken McVay
>bree...@search.dec.com (Andy Breeding) writes:
>The 70's seem to be full of lemon cars. Chrysler Newports. Novas
>and Delta 88's with bad paint. Pintos that blew up. Nightmares. Those
>were the days of Big Car American Wastefulness.
Phooey. I inherited by dad's '76 LaBaron a few years back.. it has
about 175K miles on the clock, and still runs just fine. Yes, the
paint's peeling off, but I can live with that. Mechanically, I find no
fault with the way it has survived, and that suggests that it was not
only well built, but well maintained.
I once drove taxi for a year, and was amazed to discover that the '66
Chev I drove had 225K miles on it - this in '67. Maintenance is the
key, as any cab driver will tell you.
I think the American driver, not the American worker, is the one
without any concern about quality - he's the one that lets his car run
itself into the ground without proper care.
--
=== 1B Systems Management Limited, Vancouver Island, Canada ===
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey." (John Ruskin)
Dan Harling
>gets about 38mpg on the highway, 27 city, is very nice and comfortable,
>and has an amazingly low upkeep cost for a car it's age and mileage, esp.
>when compared to an american car. I traded in a 78 Celica that had
>168k miles on it, and the only problem it had when I traded it in was
>that the body had rusted away (have to love Wisconsin winters). Mechanically
>it was still perfect, and managed to get about 30mpg on the highway. Most
>of the 4cylinder small toyotas seem to share this economy/durability/
>etc. Unlike Chevy Cavaliers, which seem to fall apart at 40k, like
>most other American cars.
>
I have a '71 Chrysler Newport Custom that amazes me. It has 126K
miles, carries up to seven passengers (with room for four more in the
trunk), consistently gets around 15mpg no matter how much it is
carrying or where it is driven, and has an amazingly low upkeep cost
for a car its age and mileage. Its paint is still good after twenty
years, and except for small amounts of rust around the fenders
(inevitable in MA winters), it is a SOLID car.
Best of all, I got it for FREE from a neighbor who bought a new car,
and couldn't get anything for it in trade. That was two or three years
ago, and it has been reliable and comfortable transportation with
little more than oil changes and other regular maintenance which I do
myself (service with a smile).
A couple of winters ago, my Newport was parked in a parking lot and was
struck by an early-model BMW whose accelerator had stuck (that was the
story, anyway). The front corner of the BMW hit the rear-right door of
my Newport, denting almost the entire door panel, by several inches in
some places. The door still opened, and the window and lock still
worked. No other damage was done; there was certainly no question as
to whether the car's frame had been bent! :-)
In contrast to smaller/modern cars, which in some cases end up with
bent frames and misalignment in the 3- and 5-mph bumper "crash" tests
performed by CR, THIS is what I call "economy/durability."
_______________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling (har...@pictel.com)
PictureTel, Inc. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA 01960 PictureTel Corp.: "Hey, I only work here!"
Len DePalma
In article <1991Nov12.1...@pictel.com>, har...@pictel.com (Dan
Harling) writes:
|> In article <1991Nov9.0...@edsi.plexus.COM>
tri...@edsi.plexus.COM (Greg Trimper) writes:
|> >The 70's seem to be full of lemon cars. Chrysler Newports.
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ &@*#@$#&!!
|>
|> I have a '71 Chrysler Newport Custom that amazes me. It has 126K
|> miles, carries up to seven passengers (with room for four more in the
|> trunk), consistently gets around 15mpg no matter how much it is
|> carrying or where it is driven, and has an amazingly low upkeep cost
|> for a car its age and mileage. Its paint is still good after twenty
All other arguments aside... you simply could not afford to drive such
a beast in any other country in the *WORLD* except the (highly gasoline
subsidized because the economy would grind to a halt without 'free'
access to it) USofA. At the risk of sounding condescending [oh, what
the hell :) ] this is unfortunate (to say the least!) for the rest of
us who must share the atmosphere/environment with this rationale.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LE...@BNR.CA Any opinions expressed above are mine.
Gary Coffman
>
>In article <1991Nov9.0...@flood.com>, t...@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes.
>
>>examples of cars that have, with appropriate repairs, replacement,
>>and rebuilding, lasted for years and hundreds of thousands of miles.
>
>True. And the cost and effort required is too great for most people to
>bother. Can the car companies make this process easier, though?
>(provided they wanted to) I wonder which car companies are the best at this
>sort of thing?
Pontiac built the Fiero to use non-structural plastic body panels that could
be easily replaced if damaged. Being plastic, and having the color all the
way through, they were harder to damage in the parking lot, and, of course,
were free of rust. But the idea didn't catch on with the public and the cars
were discontinued. The DeLorean had a stainless steel body, but was too
expensive, and tainted by the hint of drug money. The two classics in the
"forever" car category are the Volkswagon Beetle and the Military Jeep. The
style never changed, parts were bolt on rather than welded, and they were
cheap. Both are gone in the US, the Beetle lives on in Brazil where they
are less picky about 5 MPH bumpers and the Jeep sort of lives on in the
CJ, but neither is cheap anymore.
Gary
James Warren
It is not that cars are too expensive or difficult to maintain
so much as most of the people (>99%) just plain don't care enough
to do it. Cars are so cheep that it's easier to ignore maintenance
untill you are tired of the car and then trade it in.
Dan Harling
>
>In article <1991Nov12.1...@pictel.com>, har...@pictel.com (Dan
>Harling) writes:
>|> In article <1991Nov9.0...@edsi.plexus.COM>
>tri...@edsi.plexus.COM (Greg Trimper) writes:
>|> >The 70's seem to be full of lemon cars. Chrysler Newports.
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ &@*#@$#&!!
>|>
>|> I have a '71 Chrysler Newport Custom that amazes me. It has 126K
>|> miles, carries up to seven passengers (with room for four more in the
>|> trunk), consistently gets around 15mpg no matter how much it is
> ^^^^^
>|> carrying or where it is driven, and has an amazingly low upkeep cost
>|> for a car its age and mileage. Its paint is still good after twenty
>
>the hell :) ] this is unfortunate (to say the least!) for the rest of
>us who must share the atmosphere/environment with this rationale.
I normally carry a big toolbox, two milk crates of misc. engine fluids
and funnels, a couple of gallons of anti-freeze, a scizzors jack,
jumper cables, and a spare tire in the trunk. When I drive myself and
six passengers to a concert, I can still fit about two hundred pounds
of equipment (bass amp, bass & electric guitar, and often one or two
drums and stands), and my Newport STILL gets around 15mpg, rides
smoothly, and accelerates and corners with little effort.
IF you could pack that many people and equipment into two "econo-
boxes," they would each have to get 30mpg. Since you would need one
just for the equipment (the bass amp would pretty much use up the back
seat, if you could get it through the door), make it three cars @
45mpg. I have never heard of a little car making that kind of mileage
when loaded down. And forget about having a comfortable ride. And
getting on the highway with those short on-ramps. And making emergency
maneuvers without rolling... :-)
Now about environmental concerns... I see cars every day that are
billowing black smoke out their tailpipes. These cars may still get
better mileage than mine, because they are much lighter, but they are
producing far more pollution (e.g., hydrocarbons) per mile, because the
fuel is not burning properly. I take good care of my car, which
includes making the effort to keep it running well (little effort is
necessary, even after 126K miles).
All other things being equal, a car with better mileage will produce
less pollution than a car with worse mileage, but this is also true for
engine tuning. If I can see a black cloud trailing behind a Volvo, and
its bumper and license plate are covered with soot, I am pretty
confident that my car is producing less pollution per mile, no matter
how little fuel the Volvo is using. I drove behind this car
yesterday.
Giving just one of these cars a tune-up would make a greater difference
to the environment than junking my car (4200lb. of scrap metal?) and
replacing it with a new one. This places the burden on all of us to
keep our own automobiles running properly, rather than on a few
scapegoats.
As I explained earlier, there are some things that I would not be able
to do without a car the size of my Newport. While it is not an ideal
commuting vehicle in terms of mileage, it is not nearly the
"enviro-criminal" that you imply.
Mike Pelletier
>| Why can't the car industry:
>|
>| -Make cars that *really* last?
>|
>| -Design cars to be replaced piece by piece with
>| easily obtainable, reasonably priced parts?
>Your gripe boils down to: "Why can't I afford to maintain my car?"
>You complain that the parts are not easily obtainable and "reasonably"
>priced. If you think about it, the availability and price of the parts
>you want is probably quite commensurate to the cost of manufacturing
>them given the low demand for them.
Another very important factor in the affordability of auto maintenance
is whether or not you do the work yourself. Sure, the parts can really
stick you, like how they charge $75 for a little piece of plastic and
metal not much longer than 5", but that's nothing compared to how much
a mechanic would charge you for tracking the problem down to that ignition
part and replacing it.
For instance, my dad got his hands on a Porsche 924 that had been in
an accident, and the estimate for repairs was upwards of $5,000, quite
a bit more than the car was actually worth. My dad bought the wreck for
about a thousand dollars, and after about $500 worth of parts and some
physical labor and a paint job, the car was as good as new. (He avoided
paying $400 for a major steering part by using a pipe and a storm grate
to bend it back into position, and then welding it.)
So, doing your own work extends the cost/benefit curve significantly.
--
Mike Pelletier | Administrator of the systems that people tend
The University of Michigan | to be touchy about -- USENET News, Mail, and IRC.
College of Engineering | My asbestos suit is always close at hand.
Kati Norris
> I think the American driver, not the American worker, is the one
> without any concern about quality - he's the one that lets his car run
> itself into the ground without proper care.
>
(sometimes, barely) able to buy the car, required to pay insurance with
very little left over for maintenence. It's not that we don't want to,
but often other things come first. Yes, your right. Machines don't run
forever without maintenence.