Ford Fusion reverse gear
Mike Walsh
The reverse gear on my 2006 Ford Fusion 5 speed manual transmission will not engage. This happened after a problem occurred while parallel parking. I had the transmission in reverse, then moved the shifter to put it in neutral and let out the clutch. But the transmission did not go into neutral. The engine did not simply stall as if it was in reverse, but there was a dreadful noise like gears grinding. Now the transmission will not go into reverse at all. Is there any hope of getting this working without tearing the transmission apart.
--
Mike Walsh
HLS
"Mike Walsh" <spam_...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4A4778F9...@bellsouth.net...
Always, the first thing to do is have a look at the transmission,
particularly the shifter.
It may be toast, but check the externals and make sure they are okay and
properly
adjusted.
Jim Warman
another... How long was the grinding allowed to go on? How much has the
trans been operated in it's current condition of distress?
As another has commented, any diagnostic process is going to begin with
"basics".... we begin with the least intrusive, simpler checks and tests and
gradually work deeper - much like a doctor.
According to the WSM, the G5M-5 trans has a synchronized reverse..... Can
the shift lever be moved into the reverse gear position? Are there any
abnormal noises? If so, when do they occur? How many miles are on the car?
"Mike Walsh" <spam_...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4A4778F9...@bellsouth.net...
>
Mike Walsh
I don't see anything wrong externally. All forward gears shift the same as before.
--
Mike Walsh
Mike Walsh
Jim Warman wrote:
>
> Anything is possible.... it is probability that seems to get us one way or
> another... How long was the grinding allowed to go on? How much has the
> trans been operated in it's current condition of distress?
The grinding lasted about a second before it stalled.
I have driven it about 15 miles since it happened.
> As another has commented, any diagnostic process is going to begin with
> "basics".... we begin with the least intrusive, simpler checks and tests and
> gradually work deeper - much like a doctor.
>
> According to the WSM, the G5M-5 trans has a synchronized reverse..... Can
> the shift lever be moved into the reverse gear position? Are there any
> abnormal noises? If so, when do they occur? How many miles are on the car?
The shift lever will not go into the reverse position; with the engine running or off. There are no noises from the transmission. The car has only 21,000 miles on it.
Jim Warman
fusion has a 5 year/100,000 km powertrain warranty - one would assume
'similar' coverage in the US....
I'm going to tell you the same thing I have to tell the guys in our
shop..... RTFM - read the <factory> manual....
"Mike Walsh" <spam_...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4A4797A4...@bellsouth.net...
Alan Mac Farlane
> The reverse gear on my 2006 Ford Fusion 5 speed manual transmission will not engage. This happened after a problem occurred while parallel parking. I had the transmission in reverse, then moved the shifter to put it in neutral and let out the clutch. But the transmission did not go into neutral. The engine did not simply stall as if it was in reverse, but there was a dreadful noise like gears grinding. Now the transmission will not go into reverse at all. Is there any hope of getting this working without tearing the transmission apart.
>
only if you lost the linkage ... between the tranny and the steering
post or tranny shift lever.
now they are going to electrical switches to move the tranny gears
around and getting rid of the manual linkage for transmission shifting.
if the linkage is good ... my guess is you lost a shear pin off a pinon
gear ... and crunched the gearbox assembly.
old age ... metal fatigue ... confluence of events.
sumbuddie hopes that helps
:?
Alan Mac Farlane
>
There are no noises from the transmission. The car has only 21,000 miles
on it.
take it back to the factory shop ... don't think it will cost you a
thing ... warrenty thingy as it must be a new car even if it is a 2006
would think.
wow ... what a buy kinda sort of thing.
3 years old and only what ... 500 miles a month roadwork so far.
on the face of it ... you got a good deal and it is worth keeping around
perhaps.
sumbuddie just making wild guess now
:?
Toyota MDT in MO
--
Toyota MDT in MO
Hachiroku ハチロク
> old age ... metal fatigue ... confluence of events.
Made in Mexico...
Hachiroku ハチロク
I *THINK* he was telling him to take it do the dealer and try to press for
warranty repair. I know Toyota now has 3 years, 36,000 miles, and if they
have a warranty like that on good cars, Ford must cover them for life...
*STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
krp
"Alan Mac Farlane" <al...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a47a629$0$1633$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Mike Walsh wrote:
>> The reverse gear on my 2006 Ford Fusion 5 speed manual transmission will
>> not engage. This happened after a problem occurred while parallel
>> parking. I had the transmission in reverse, then moved the shifter to put
>> it in neutral and let out the clutch. But the transmission did not go
>> into neutral. The engine did not simply stall as if it was in reverse,
>> but there was a dreadful noise like gears grinding. Now the transmission
>> will not go into reverse at all. Is there any hope of getting this
>> working without tearing the transmission apart.
>>
>
>
> only if you lost the linkage ... between the tranny and the steering post
> or tranny shift lever.
A problem as old as the hills with manual transmissions has always been that
some owners are "Gorilla Monsoons" who will apply a great deal of FORCE to
"MAKE" the vehicle go into the gear when it doesn't want to. You see linkage
that looks like a pretzel, or you see the synchro gears either stripped or
forced out of place. Usually you see that on older 4 speeds with Harry
Hotrod types. BUT we have some Scooter owners who try to do things in
shifting that are incredible. My step son has a new Honda S-1. The kid
managed to MANGLE the clutch mechanism to the tune of $2 in less than 5K
miles. He thought he was a RACE DRIVER. He managed to get it fixed under
warranty, but I knew what he did. I have seen him drive. He loves to
power-shift but the WRONG WAY.
No telling what it is - it may well be internal in the transmission, OR it
may be screwed up linkage. If it is the linkage - I'd suggest the driver
take some LESSONS.
HLS
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06.28....@e86.GTS...
>
> *STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
> reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
I guess it depends upon how you feel about VWs. I am very disappointed that
VW has not stepped up to the plate and proven that German technology can
equal or better that of Japanese.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Hey! NO PROBLEM with the Technology! German engineering is fantastic! My
brand-new '85 Jetta only had 85 HP, but felt like a lot more, had room in
the trunk for 3 bodies, could carry 5 comfortably and had features found
on cars thousands of dollars more!
They should just hand the designs over to the Japanese and let them screw
'em together! ;)
HLS
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>
> Hey! NO PROBLEM with the Technology! German engineering is fantastic! My
> brand-new '85 Jetta only had 85 HP, but felt like a lot more, had room in
> the trunk for 3 bodies, could carry 5 comfortably and had features found
> on cars thousands of dollars more!
>
> They should just hand the designs over to the Japanese and let them screw
> 'em together! ;)
>
>
VW has had persistent quality problems, and corporate always backs the
dealerships
who take responsibility for NOTHING.
VW has the ability to make a really great car. They just dont always do it.
Tegger
$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
He has a point, but his hat hides it.
--
Tegger
Toyota MDT in MO
Toyota MDT in MO
Toyota offers 5/60 on powertrain, actually. You may be thinking of
Honda who still holds onto their 3/36 bumper to bumper warranty (and
seems to still sell cars).
> *STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
> reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
>
>
The flames would never have started had you not said that you like
Fords! :-) Ironically, if I had to recommend a Ford based on
reliability, price, and cost of ownership, I would probably start with
the Focus. That's not saying much, but I do love me some devil's advocate.
Mike Walsh
In the US the warranty is 3 years; it is 3 months out of warranty.
Dioclese
news:pan.2009.06.28....@e86.GTS...
Guess I really screwed up then. In '92, I bought a 1988 VW Fox GL wagon.
1.8L/4 speed manual. I put alot of money into it, but nowhere near matchng
new car payments of any vehicle for a few years. 35 city/highway average.
Clutch assembly replaced twice, tranny once, same engine in its lifetime.
Was reliable till last year. Car pulled left from opposing lane in front of
me. VW was beyond economical repair, beyond total insurance reimbursement.
Mileage was over 350K.
Took insurance monies and my some of my own savings to put monies down on a
2008 Focus 5 spd manual, no frills whatsoever. 2 year extended warranty as
well. All last year. Took delivery on Aug. 1st. Had dealer change
oil/filter 3 times since. That's all the maintenance done. Approx. 6700
miles to date. Should I look for 350K miles again?
--
Dave
Dioclese
news:pan.2009.06.28....@e86.GTS...
>
>> old age ... metal fatigue ... confluence of events.
>
> Made in Mexico...
>
>
>
Good dart may have missed it mark.
Vehicle is currently assembled in Mexico, not sure about 2006. Is the 2006
Fusion manual transmission made in another country? 2008/2009 Focus 5 speed
manual is made in France for example. Mazda engine for Focus 2.4L. Focus
is assembled in Michigan.
--
Dave
Alan Mac Farlane
>> :?
>>
>>
> ? indeed. Did your post have a point?
>
It is on Brother Pat Robertson Speartip of God out getting all his 700
Clubbers first, and all US heathens, atheists, Constitutionalists,
slanti eyed alein devils, condom lovers, homosexual lovers, stem cell
lovers, and medical marijuana lovers later ... are all going to hell as
Jesus is going to kill them and cast them to the winds with all his
enemies like they were Dutch Jews. Well, after he gets all the 700
Clubbers first ... when Pat Robertson finally gets squewered by His
Spearchucking God ... get a helmet, duck like the donald, run for your
lives.
The point will get you in the end ... just be patient.
sumbuddie saw this on tee vee
:?
Alan Mac Farlane
here is my best Deniro ...
hey ... funnnieeeee
Alan Mac Farlane
coast .. so they get the same gas mileage, tire mileage, and brake
mileage as manual transmissions.
Mind you ... getting and holding the gear you want is good ... like on
the Ice Road ... no automatics up there much.
BMW ... is developing the "Infinity Gear Transmission" ... where one
will have a high torque engine, maybe a V-12 with pistons the size of
salt shakers, a large fly wheel .. and it will just sit at idle. Maybe
even a high compression diesel engine.
Then all one will have is a Transmission Pedal on the floor ... and burn
rubber at any speed with the engine at idle.
It is coming ...
sumbuddie on da watchtower
:?
Hachiroku ハチロク
Dude! Loosen the tin-foil hat!!!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Hmmm....same motor as my Jetta.
Fox wagon was a cool car. And I know of some Rabbit diesel 'trucks' that
have gone >500,000 miles!!
They're too sporadic. If you get a good one, you really have a good car.
But if you get a bad one...
Too bad they can't get a better hold of their quality control. VW makes
some very cool cars.
>
> Took insurance monies and my some of my own savings to put monies down
> on a 2008 Focus 5 spd manual, no frills whatsoever. 2 year extended
> warranty as well. All last year. Took delivery on Aug. 1st. Had
> dealer change oil/filter 3 times since. That's all the maintenance
> done. Approx. 6700 miles to date. Should I look for 350K miles again?
I wouldn't hold my breath...
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:35 -0500, Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alan Mac Farlane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Warman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no noises from the transmission. The car has only 21,000
>>>> miles on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> take it back to the factory shop ... don't think it will cost you a
>>>> thing ... warrenty thingy as it must be a new car even if it is a 2006
>>>> would think.
>>>>
>>>> wow ... what a buy kinda sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> 3 years old and only what ... 500 miles a month roadwork so far.
>>>>
>>>> on the face of it ... you got a good deal and it is worth keeping
>>>> around perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> sumbuddie just making wild guess now
>>>>
>>>> :?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ? indeed. Did your post have a point?
>>>
>>
>> I *THINK* he was telling him to take it do the dealer and try to press for
>> warranty repair. I know Toyota now has 3 years, 36,000 miles, and if they
>> have a warranty like that on good cars, Ford must cover them for life...
>>
>>
>
> Toyota offers 5/60 on powertrain, actually. You may be thinking of
> Honda who still holds onto their 3/36 bumper to bumper warranty (and
> seems to still sell cars).
YOU know I'm a Toyota fan. I had one Honda...Had One Never Did Again...
Only because Toyotas are more accessible. I almost got a Honda Civic Si in
2006 instead of my Scion tC, but there was a 3-4 month wait. Just like in
1977 when I wanted an 'original' Accord...
>
>> *STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
>> reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
>>
>>
>
> The flames would never have started had you not said that you like
> Fords! :-) Ironically, if I had to recommend a Ford based on
> reliability, price, and cost of ownership, I would probably start with
> the Focus. That's not saying much, but I do love me some devil's advocate.
The Focus is another cool car gone awry. We had one on the lot; probably
didn't sell because it was the funky looking 3-door ZX3 in...yellow....
Now, I like yellow! I matched the color and sprayed a God-Awful Green
Krylon Tercel AWD wagon someone gave me, and then pearl-coated it to make
it *REALLY* glow!
That Focus was one hell of a car! Fast, comfortable, innovative, and I
like quirky looking cars, so I dug it. It was also a 2000, 2nd year IIRC,
so being an American product I was a little leery.
The Taurus was a good car. When you stamp out >1/4 mil in 8 months, you're
bound to have some troubles. Likewise for the Ranger. Get a halfway decent
one, and you have a good little truck.
Personally, I've wanted one of these since I was 9 years old...
http://www.drivenshow.ca/edmonton/images/ford_GT40-08-1024.jpg
Derek Gee
>
> In the US the warranty is 3 years; it is 3 months out of warranty.
When exactly did you buy it? Ford upped the powertrain warranty to 60,000
miles for 2006 models purchased after July 14, 2006.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116108
Derek
Toyota MDT in MO
your crap anymore. Thanks!
HLS
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06.30....@e86.GTS...
>
> They're too sporadic. If you get a good one, you really have a good car.
> But if you get a bad one...
I have owned two Passats, and they were both darn good, but I have had
friends who owned
them (Passats and the new Beetle) and they were a PITA. It IS sporadic.
I wrote to the CEO of VWUSA a couple of years ago and entreated him to
become involved
to improve the quality and to support the client. I, not unexpectedly, got
a reply that he
was deeply involved, dedicated to improving quality, etc etc.
Action talks, bullshit walks
Hachiroku ハチロク
That's why VW had to extend warraties long before Hyundai did...
Dioclese
One can say that about any make/model car. They're called "lemons". My
personal experience with VWs is before the mid-90s, they were by and large
dependable at the very least.
> Too bad they can't get a better hold of their quality control. VW makes
> some very cool cars.
>
VW quality control went when they went fishing for the bigger market almost
a decade ago
.
>>
>> Took insurance monies and my some of my own savings to put monies down
>> on a 2008 Focus 5 spd manual, no frills whatsoever. 2 year extended
>> warranty as well. All last year. Took delivery on Aug. 1st. Had
>> dealer change oil/filter 3 times since. That's all the maintenance
>> done. Approx. 6700 miles to date. Should I look for 350K miles again?
>
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath...
>
>
Maybe I won't have to. The rate I'm going, it'll be 12 years until I hit
100K miles. By then, my detached garage roof will be covered with solar
cells and the garage will house a Ford electric plug-in.
--
Dave
Alan Mac Farlane
'
what ... to much tee vee reception going on here ...
Alan Mac Farlane
see ... you missing the point again ... be patient ...
Scott Dorsey
>
>I have owned two Passats, and they were both darn good, but I have had
>friends who owned
>them (Passats and the new Beetle) and they were a PITA. It IS sporadic.
The Passat has some very good points, but it is clearly not designed with
any thought to repair. To do even routine work in the engine compartment
requires extensive dissasembly.
>I wrote to the CEO of VWUSA a couple of years ago and entreated him to
>become involved
>to improve the quality and to support the client. I, not unexpectedly, got
>a reply that he
>was deeply involved, dedicated to improving quality, etc etc.
The problem is that his notion of quality is probably not the same as my
notion of quality. I can live with readily-repaired defects that he might
not consider acceptable, and I'm extremely frustrated by the sort of repair
procedures that he probably considers reasonable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
HLS
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h2d751$ie$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> The problem is that his notion of quality is probably not the same as my
> notion of quality. I can live with readily-repaired defects that he might
> not consider acceptable, and I'm extremely frustrated by the sort of
> repair
> procedures that he probably considers reasonable.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Some of the biggest complaints I heard about were electrical system
problems. If there
were one focusable electrical unit problem, that might be more easily fixed.
When the
problem is spread over a "system", you may never get everything fixed and
working
correctly.
It is, IMO, a matter of taking responsibility for citruslike product...maybe
not total lemons
approaching them. GM never did very well at this either, until their ox was
in the ditch.
Scott Dorsey
>Some of the biggest complaints I heard about were electrical system
>problems. If there
>were one focusable electrical unit problem, that might be more easily fixed.
>When the
>problem is spread over a "system", you may never get everything fixed and
>working
>correctly.
This is increasingly becoming a problem for ALL car manufacturers. The
complexity of the electrical systems is increasing exponentially, and the
knowledge of the dealer mechanics is not increasing at the same rate. On
top of that, most of this stuff is designed to be replaced in large expensive
modules, in order to make troubleshooting easier. This means even minor
repairs become expensive, and even worse it means that board-swapping
"changineers" can very rapidly turn a minor problem into an enormous expense.
>It is, IMO, a matter of taking responsibility for citruslike product...maybe
>not total lemons
>approaching them. GM never did very well at this either, until their ox was
>in the ditch.
Hell, look at Mercedes...... and don't even get me started on the newer
BMW electronics...
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> Hmmm....same motor as my Jetta.
>> Fox wagon was a cool car. And I know of some Rabbit diesel 'trucks' that
>> have gone >500,000 miles!!
>>
>> They're too sporadic. If you get a good one, you really have a good car.
>> But if you get a bad one...
>>
>
> One can say that about any make/model car. They're called "lemons". My
> personal experience with VWs is before the mid-90s, they were by and large
> dependable at the very least.
I was talking to a guy I know today who bought a GMC p/u from me when I
used to sell used cars. 100,000 miles and one tranny later, the thing is
still going. He loads about 3 tons of scrap in it regularly to bring to
the recycler's.
I said to him, pointing to my Scion, "Toyota occasionally makes a lemon,
GM ocassionally makes a good one..."
Generalization, but GM would be in better shape if their paradigm more
closely matched Toyota's...
>
>> Too bad they can't get a better hold of their quality control. VW makes
>> some very cool cars.
>>
>
> VW quality control went when they went fishing for the bigger market almost
> a decade ago
Actually, the Rabbit was kind of hit or miss, too. For every 3 good ones
there was one really horrible copy.
> .
>>>
>>> Took insurance monies and my some of my own savings to put monies down
>>> on a 2008 Focus 5 spd manual, no frills whatsoever. 2 year extended
>>> warranty as well. All last year. Took delivery on Aug. 1st. Had
>>> dealer change oil/filter 3 times since. That's all the maintenance
>>> done. Approx. 6700 miles to date. Should I look for 350K miles again?
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't hold my breath...
>>
>>
>
> Maybe I won't have to. The rate I'm going, it'll be 12 years until I hit
> 100K miles. By then, my detached garage roof will be covered with solar
> cells and the garage will house a Ford electric plug-in.
> --
My tC is a 2005 with 26,000 miles. I'll get there sooner, but not by much...
Hal
> According to the WSM, the G5M-5 trans has a synchronized reverse..... Can
> the shift lever be moved into the reverse gear position? Are there any
> abnormal noises? If so, when do they occur? How many miles are on the car?
>
I've opened two G5M's, and see no evidence to support synchronized
reverse. Further proof is when you try to go into reverse immediately
after pressing the clutch without letting the input shaft spin down.
It grinds. Both of my G5M's did it. The FSM I have says it's got a
sync'd reverse. I don't believe it. If you look at how the linkage
works, there is a straight-cut gear that flips upward to link the
input and output shafts and reverse the direction of the output in the
process of doing so. There is no syncronizer on the reverse fork that
I can see.
As far as the symptom that the OP is mentioning, it sounds like
something went casters-up in the linkage inside the box. Might be
easier to find a good used junkyard transaxle and put that into the
car and fix the one you have as time permits. At only 30k the bearings
and syncronizers -should- be in perfect shape, so the repair might be
as simple as replacing one or two hard parts and resealing the case
halves. The fact that the forward gears are still working is a very
good sign. The G5M isn't terribly hard to take apart, I did mine with
a a few sockets and a hammer and punch to remove the roll pin from the
5th gear fork. Before you get too far into the repair just remember
that the differential side gears in the G5M's I've worked on are not
self-supporting. You -must- put a PVC pipe or wooden dowel in the hole
for the CV axle once you pull the first axle out, or you will get to
re-align the differential gears. Ask me how I know...I got a 2,000
mile mint used example shipped to me, sans supports for the
differential gears, and had to open the box to fix it.
Chris
Toyota MDT in MO
the back of the side gears (probably saves a penny), so it is always
wise to secure any unfamiliar differential side gear with a suitable
pipe or what-have-you during axle removal. Bet you're an expert on that
gearbox now, huh?! :-)
Jeff
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:35 -0500, Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
>
>
> > Alan Mac Farlane wrote:
>
> >> There are no noises from the transmission. The car has only 21,000
> >> miles on it.
>
> >> take it back to the factory shop ... don't think it will cost you a
> >> thing ... warrenty thingy as it must be a new car even if it is a 2006
> >> would think.
>
> >> wow ... what a buy kinda sort of thing.
>
> >> 3 years old and only what ... 500 miles a month roadwork so far.
>
> >> on the face of it ... you got a good deal and it is worth keeping
> >> around perhaps.
>
> >> sumbuddie just making wild guess now
>
>
> > ? indeed. Did your post have a point?
>
> warranty repair. I know Toyota now has 3 years, 36,000 miles, and if they
> have a warranty like that on good cars, Ford must cover them for life...
>
> *STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
> reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
May Ford Focus has been flawless so far, with about 13,000 mi on it.
Evidence that Ford Foci have more problems than other cars, please.
Jeff
Jeff
> "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.06.28....@e86.GTS...
>
>
>
> > *STOP THE FLAMES!!!* I like Fords. Except Focuses. Cool car with the
> > reliablitiy of a Volkswagen...
>
> VW has not stepped up to the plate and proven that German technology can
> equal or better that of Japanese.
The technology is excellent. At least until recently, the reliability
of VWs has not been that good, however.
HLS
"Jeff" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5401ab01-43ab-4b79...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> I guess it depends upon how you feel about VWs. I am very disappointed
> that
> VW has not stepped up to the plate and proven that German technology can
> equal or better that of Japanese.
The technology is excellent. At least until recently, the reliability
of VWs has not been that good, however.
*******
You can use the word quality, or durability, or product integrity if you
wish instead of "technology".. The fact is that VW, even now, is not
as good as it should be.
Scott Dorsey
Nothing is as good as it should be, sadly. The real world is just
like that.
In the eighties and nineties, VW fell for the common German delusion that
one should never use one part when five would do. This philosophy is
very contrary to the original spirit of the VW Bug. Sadly it is a problem
that is no longer exclusively German, either.
On the other hand, the British philosophy is that one should never use one
part when a piece of rope would do. It is possible to go too far in the
other direction as well.
HLS
>
> On the other hand, the British philosophy is that one should never use one
> part when a piece of rope would do. It is possible to go too far in the
> other direction as well.
> --scott
> --
ROTFLMAO....too true
Toyota MDT in MO
> HLS <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>> "Jeff" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5401ab01-43ab-4b79...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> I guess it depends upon how you feel about VWs. I am very disappointed
>>> that
>>> VW has not stepped up to the plate and proven that German technology can
>>> equal or better that of Japanese.
>>>
>> The technology is excellent. At least until recently, the reliability
>> of VWs has not been that good, however.
>> *******
>>
>> You can use the word quality, or durability, or product integrity if you
>> wish instead of "technology".. The fact is that VW, even now, is not
>> as good as it should be.
>>
>
> Nothing is as good as it should be, sadly. The real world is just
> like that.
>
> In the eighties and nineties, VW fell for the common German delusion that
> one should never use one part when five would do. This philosophy is
> very contrary to the original spirit of the VW Bug. Sadly it is a problem
> that is no longer exclusively German, either.
>
>
I wouldn't rule out the 2000s either. As the cost of the VW product
goes up (think Phaeton, Tourag or the Audi and Porsche lines in general)
the amount of extra crap increases proportionally. It seems that most
of the stuff that could be eliminated is what fails the most; my
favorite being the $600 secondary air pump, a part no more advanced than
a $25 hair dryer. For $600 they can't at least make the part durable?
Don't forget the poorly designed turbo diesels (90's) available in even
the cheapest of VWs. Add that they (VW) target the eclectic buyer that
manages to 'like' the car a whole bunch but can't see fit to fix it when
it fails. Then those cars become 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand used car sales
to either poor folk or people who will never ever fix their car under
any circumstances. That's why VW sucks and why working on VWs for a
living sucks.
Toyota MDT in MO
accept anecdotal evidence (shouldn't be a problem since you freely offer
the same), but I see virtually every Focus nickel and dime their
customers pretty badly, and a good number cause enough expensive
problems to total the car (as they lose value very quickly that isn't
too hard). It's tough to sell anything as their customers don't spend
any money anyway. As I said in an earlier post, I think the Focus is
actually a bit better in reliability and cost of ownership than most
other Ford products, but that isn't saying much.
HLS
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_T43m.2455 That's why VW sucks and why working on VWs for a
> living sucks.
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO
Some of my friends would add to your comment that owning them sucks too ;>)
As I have said, I have owned two Passats, both really good cars. My friends
have
gotten some lemons. They cant seem to make either a good, or a poor,
product
consistently.
Mike
customer surveys?
Take a look at what vehicles the currier fleets are buying. Currier car are
run 24 hours, a days seven days a week, and easily run to 100,000 miles or
more a year and they are not buying Toyotas. When the do choose a foreign
car over Fords, they buy Korean cars. LOL
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UZ43m.2457$j84....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Toyota MDT in MO
I applaud your friends' thoughts! The problem is, I've never met anyone
who didn't think their VW/Audi was the greatest thing ever or at minimum
a good solid car that was perfect for their needs. I guess they are the
perfect cars to drive into the ground while never fixing anything.
Mike
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Epq3m.3357$vO4....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
Toyota MDT in MO
Toyota owners are known to perform regular maintenance on their cars
much better than many other makes' owners. LOL
Derek Gee
news:O463m.2148$Wj7....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
Indeed, they make unreliable vehicles! The 2009 JD Power Vehicle
Dependability Study shows them second from last! Only Suzuki is making
worse. Not sure how Land Rover finally got out of last place this year...
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?id=2009043
Derek
Mike
REALLY prove is that ALL vehicles are falling into the 2% failure rated for
ALL manufactured products, if stated in percentages rather than a list.
If one surveyed only the worlds ten finest cars, one would be on the top and
another on the bottom but they would still be the worlds ten finest car.
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a4eb9f8$0$5663$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Mike
preventive maintenance.
What happens in the real world is the longer one own a vehicle the more
poorly they have it maintained
Look at corporate fleet vehicles that are run for five year or 300,000 miles
because federal corporate deprecation tax laws. They are extremely well
maintained as a result
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wVw3m.4184$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Toyota MDT in MO
The only thing I'm failing at is responding to a premier 'too much time
on his hands' kinda troll. Firstly, prove me wrong about Toyota owners
taking care of their cars more thoroughly compared to most other makes'
owners, then explain how your contention, (though not strictly true)
"any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper preventive
maintenance" refutes my last post, and finally explain how the
makes/models I've mentioned in the past as being more trouble prone RE:
major expenditures is flawed. How many transmission overhauls are
acceptable within the first 100k miles, Ford and Chrysler? LOL
Mike
transmission problem and we serviced several thousands of Ford fleet
vehicles that were run too 300,000 miles, or more, and never had a tranny
problem.
How many miles can one expect from one of the thousands of Toyotas with the
"Gelling Problem," as Toyota refers to their engines that sludge up, like
the ones we had to replace?
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tgR3m.5512$lv5....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
HLS
>
> I applaud your friends' thoughts! The problem is, I've never met anyone
> who didn't think their VW/Audi was the greatest thing ever or at minimum a
> good solid car that was perfect for their needs. I guess they are the
> perfect cars to drive into the ground while never fixing anything.
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO
Latest was a younger lady here in town whom I have known for years. She had
one of the
new Beetles, and was happy with it for a couple of years. Then, for the
last year or two,
it has been in the shop every couple of months, and the repairs were not
cheap.
I suspect this is an unusual situation, or VW wouldnt have the popularity it
has. She got
rid of the thing and bought a Lincoln.
Some of my friends in Germany have had lots of problems with their
electrical systems, while
others of us have had none.
I think all cars are a little more complicated than they really should be.
The worst I have is a Reatta. Electronics were designed and built by Satan
himself.
I may junk it.
HLS
"Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a4eca0b$0$27609$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> Get real. Any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper
> preventive maintenance.
>
> What happens in the real world is the longer one own a vehicle the more
> poorly they have it maintained
Some people start off with poor maintenance. And never improve.
Hal
> "any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper preventive
> maintenance" refutes my last post, and finally explain how the
I have to agree on the 'any car will make it to 250k' bit. Proper
maintenance may very well include a transaxle overhaul, or an engine
overhaul, or both, to get to 250,000 miles.. It really depends on the
particular make and model you are trying to get to 250,000 miles.
Chrysler/Ford/VW automatic transmissions/transaxles....total crap. All
of them, in my opinion. There is just no way in hell any of those
slushboxes would ever make it 250,000 miles without SOME kind of
repair. Then again, I'd like to see any automatic, even a Toyota, go
that far without having a failure. On a standard gearbox, such a feat
wouldn't be all that impressive, but only because there are far fewer
points of failure, and far fewer gaskets/o-rings/AXOD beer-can
aluminum forward pistons(are you listening, Ford?), and so on to break/
leak.
You almost sound like you expect a Toyota to go to 250,000 miles with
the hood welded shut, which will never ever happen. Any car, I don't
care who makes it, requires the owner open the hood once a week, take
a peek around, and make sure nothing is amiss. Anyone not willing or
able to do that is destined to buy a new car every 5-6 years or get
sacked with a big repair bill when something major craps out because
something minor was ignored. Then again, that's just how Detroit wants
things.
The problem I see is that as a car ages, things begin to break. Common
sense, right? When one thing breaks, many people will just ignore the
problem and keep driving. Second thing breaks...same thing. 10 broken
things later and a permanently on "Check Engine" light, the owner says
to himself "Self, this car is a piece of shit. I need a new one
because it would cost me about $2000 to fix all the stuff wrong with
this one". So they buy a new car and get on with their life, thinking
that somehow, that new car is cheaper than their old ride.
It isn't. But trying to explain that $2000 today is less than $400 a
month for the next 5 years to most people just gets you a 'deer in the
headlights' stare and a "That guy is crazy for driving a 15 year old
car...." comment as you walk away.
Bottom line, everyone can get to hell their own way, but I'm driving
myself there in either my super beetle(unknown miles but still runs
fine thanks to proper maintenace) or my Kia, 112,000 and going strong,
with proper maintenance. Or maybe the Miata, or maybe the 1988 pickup.
All are paid for, and all run fine. I'll never buy a brand new car
ever again. Don't get me wrong, it was nice; I'd even go so far as to
call it amazing the one time I did buy a brand new car right off the
lot. But I'll never do it again; a brand new car is the worst
investment a person can make in my opinion.
John Muir was right when he proposed the forever car concept. Buy a
car and keep it -forever-. Google it if you don't believe me.
Chris
Toyota MDT in MO
Dear 'too much time',
about 1,000,000 miles. Thank you for your interest in the durability of
superior Toyota engines. LOL
Toyota MDT in MO
have the touch screen interface (inoperative, no doubt)?
Toyota MDT in MO
>> owners, then explain how your contention, (though not strictly true)
>> "any car will easily run to 250,000 miles if given the proper preventive
>> maintenance" refutes my last post, and finally explain how the
>>
>
> I have to agree on the 'any car will make it to 250k' bit. Proper
> maintenance may very well include a transaxle overhaul, or an engine
> overhaul, or both, to get to 250,000 miles.. It really depends on the
> particular make and model you are trying to get to 250,000 miles.
>
>
"Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply
encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads,
and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone
thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this
era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the
horseless carriage. I can't help but also mention that I wrote the
above paragraph to ask MyCunt how what he wrote refuted my statement
that he responded to. Again, a trans overhaul isn't maintenance.
Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability
competition.
> Chrysler/Ford/VW automatic transmissions/transaxles....total crap. All
> of them, in my opinion. There is just no way in hell any of those
> slushboxes would ever make it 250,000 miles without SOME kind of
> repair. Then again, I'd like to see any automatic, even a Toyota, go
> that far without having a failure.
Toyota has had some auto trans problems, usually concentrated around new
design rollout, but they have been very minor statistically. People
seem to think I'm a Toyota apologist. Whatever, I see them all the time
and know what they can do. Frankly, I would me much better off
monetarily if they did fail more often. Why would I want my bread and
butter repair line to be infallible? There's a difference between being
a Toyota fanboy and offering sound purchase and repair advice. I try to
adhere to the latter philosophy here on usenet and to friends/family.
If they don't want to listen or agree, so be it. Before I knew anything
about cars mechanically (and was too young to buy a car anyway) I used
to think I'd buy 'Murican just for the sake of the country. Now I buy
whatever I want because I can gix it if necessary, and advise others to
buy what I think is best for their needs. Given that lowest overall
cost of ownership rates highest on most people's needs lists, usually it
is a Japanese company's product that I recommend, and usually the
product is made in 'Murica, employing 'Muricans.
> On a standard gearbox, such a feat
> wouldn't be all that impressive, but only because there are far fewer
> points of failure, and far fewer gaskets/o-rings/AXOD beer-can
> aluminum forward pistons(are you listening, Ford?), and so on to break/
> leak.
>
Exactly. Most every manual is fairly durable. Here's a "surprise"
honest statement, though I've said it before and other lines have
suffered the identical fate: The E250 MT, notably on Rav4s from 96-00,
would routinely wear out it's 5th synchronizer, often under 100,000
miles. I don't consider that acceptable.
> You almost sound like you expect a Toyota to go to 250,000 miles with
> the hood welded shut, which will never ever happen. Any car, I don't
> care who makes it, requires the owner open the hood once a week, take
> a peek around, and make sure nothing is amiss. Anyone not willing or
> able to do that is destined to buy a new car every 5-6 years or get
> sacked with a big repair bill when something major craps out because
> something minor was ignored. Then again, that's just how Detroit wants
> things.
>
>
Good thing you said "almost", your statement was almost ludicrous :-)
With regular maintenance, as defined above, yes, any model that Toyota
puts out today or in the last 15+ years will easily surpass 250k - with
very high statistical positive result. There will be less lemons in any
sample compared to the poorer built and QCed domestic products out there.
> The problem I see is that as a car ages, things begin to break. Common
> sense, right? When one thing breaks, many people will just ignore the
> problem and keep driving. Second thing breaks...same thing. 10 broken
> things later and a permanently on "Check Engine" light, the owner says
> to himself "Self, this car is a piece of shit. I need a new one
> because it would cost me about $2000 to fix all the stuff wrong with
> this one". So they buy a new car and get on with their life, thinking
> that somehow, that new car is cheaper than their old ride.
>
That is exactly what happens in a lot of cases. See it all the time.
> It isn't. But trying to explain that $2000 today is less than $400 a
> month for the next 5 years to most people just gets you a 'deer in the
> headlights' stare and a "That guy is crazy for driving a 15 year old
> car...." comment as you walk away.
>
>
Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if
one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped
and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues
before they stack up (and possibly pass on the minor stuff like broken
interior trim, an inop right rear window motor, etc), the cost to keep a
car is lower than buying new even by the time the average car has
multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a
butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not
going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think
that the same people who let themselves get boned at bad shops for a
long time are the same people that regularly turn into the disposable
car types.
> Bottom line, everyone can get to hell their own way, but I'm driving
> myself there in either my super beetle(unknown miles but still runs
> fine thanks to proper maintenace) or my Kia, 112,000 and going strong,
> with proper maintenance. Or maybe the Miata, or maybe the 1988 pickup.
> All are paid for, and all run fine. I'll never buy a brand new car
> ever again. Don't get me wrong, it was nice; I'd even go so far as to
> call it amazing the one time I did buy a brand new car right off the
> lot. But I'll never do it again; a brand new car is the worst
> investment a person can make in my opinion.
>
As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that
concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If
you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever,
and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown
in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that
time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far
and away the worst at dropping replacement parts within 8 years -- even
emissions related parts!), along with the ideal of making smaller sub
components unavailable, preferring to offer diagnostic procedures and
parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that
someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that
isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you
aren't being absolute regarding "forever") keeping a car for as long as
is financially sound, eliminating new car purchases, and only buying
another used car when the first becomes too expensive to repair is very
sound financial advice.
> John Muir was right when he proposed the forever car concept. Buy a
> car and keep it -forever-. Google it if you don't believe me.
>
Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside :-)
> Chris
Hal
> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply
> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads,
> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone
> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this
> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the
I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-)
> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability
> competition.
No argument on that point here.
> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if
> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped
> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues
The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an
HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of
the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or
an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go
looking for work, work comes looking for -them-.
> multiple serious issues stacked up. Now that same owner, going to a
> butcher shop, bad dealership, or typical tire chain theifmart, is not
> going to realize much in the way of long term savings. I kinda think
Amen to that.
> As cars and design practices continue to evolve, the problem with that
> concept is that parts are being stocked for shorter periods of time. If
> you were to tell someone to buy a used 2002 XYZ now and keep it forever,
> and he has the unlucky misfortune to suffer a widgetmajoogle breakdown
> in 2012, he may discover that it isn't available used or new at that
> time. I see this happening more and more (especially Ford, they are far
So far, the only car I've had trouble procuring parts for is my 1974
super beetle. Some of the parts are impossible to find, but the major
powertrain components are still available, even though the price has
shot up in recent years.
True story, back in 1996 I was going to replace the transaxle in the
above car. Reverse did not work. I went to a local VW parts place,
told them what I wanted, the guy disappeared behind the counter for a
minute, came back to the counter with a rebuilt transaxle in his hands
(!!), I handed the guy $300 and walked out with the transaxle in my
hands. I put it in, it's still in the car.
A month or so ago I was at that same store. A remanufactured transaxle
is now over $900 for that same car. They had -one- in stock last time
I was there. Apparently the supply of good cores has all but
evaporated.
> parts only as complete assemblies. If anything, I'd suggest that
> someone following your logic buy the most popular car on the road (that
> isn't a Ford) and then hope for the best. Reasonably, (and I'm sure you
Not to degrade your profession, but a modern mechanic is more akin to
a diagnose and swap parts guy than an actual "lets take this machine
apart, measure what we got, re-machine as needed, fit new bearings,
rings, seals, clutch packs, and so on and put it back together". Those
days are all but gone unless your definition of having parts machined
is having a flywheel resurfaced for a clutch overhaul.
Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new
one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few
folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or
transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and
buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my
hands. Must be fucking nice to be able to just buy a new car when the
need arises, huh? :-)
>
> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside :-)
>
Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep
a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain
than to replace.
Best,
Chris
Toyota MDT in MO
>> "Maintenance" doesn't include major component overhaul, it simply
>> encompasses fluid changes, wear parts replacement such as brake pads,
>> and designed adjustments where applicable. I can't imagine anyone
>> thinking that maintenance includes trans or engine overhaul in this
>> era. The definition has changed significantly since the days of the
>>
>
> I guess you and I can agree to disagree on this point. :-)
>
>
That's fine, but automotive maintenance is a term that has possible been
redifined over the years. It is not the same as 'maintenance' RE: the
dictionary. Let's call what I am talking about "preventative
maintenance" to stay on topic. Change the oils, coolant, brake fluid,
etc. before they fail and cause component failure. In fact, change them
at an interval that ensures they don't fail, even if you "waste" a small
period of the fluids' life. Replace brake pads, clutch plates, etc. as
well before they leave you stranded or unsafe - or wear into normally
lifetime components like calipers, knuckles, and flywheels. DON'T
consider major component replacement as preventative maintenance - how
would that be preventative? DON'T consider bulb , windshield, fender,
or sunroof cable replacements as preventative. Replace them when and if
they break. Pack bulb sockets with dielectric and lube sunroof cables
instead.
I consider the terminology to be interchangeable in the auto repair
industry. I hope you can agree on the above concept(s) given the
adjustment in semantics.
Obviously you would fix a transmission *if* it broke *if* you wanted to
keep driving the car. Obviously you would give it a better chance at
not breaking in the first place if you lubed the linkages and changed
the fluid on schedule.
>> Again, I'll take the worst Toyota over the best Ford in a durability
>> competition.
>>
>
> No argument on that point here.
>
>
>
On a side note, I just realized one of the groups this thread goes out
to is alt.autos.ford :-)
>> Agreed. It is especially cost effective to do the repairs oneself if
>> one is adept at such. Even if you consider having a properly equipped
>> and trained shop that charges what they're worth to fix these issues
>>
>
> The problem is either a lack of ability to do repairs, or lack of an
> HONEST shop to do repairs on your behalf. Here's a good indicator of
> the honesty and integrity of a car repair shop: If you see a coupon or
> an ad in the paper, keep looking. HONEST shops don't have to go
> looking for work, work comes looking for -them-.
>
>
Good observation. Some very strong shop marketers (and good quality
shop owners to boot) would sort of disagree, but fundamentily I agree
with your assertion. Often they suggest a "discount "that doesn't
require a coupon, but I feel that appeals to stupid people. I would
rather pay someone what they normally charge for work done, but then I'm
not the norm. If anyone thinks they are "due" a genuine discount
through any method, just because they can use scissors or read a sign,
then he is a twit.
Not taken that way. It's true. The ability to diagnose complex
problems and the cost of diagnostic tools (due to the increasing number
required) has increased so much and will continue to skyrocket, though.
There just isn't time in the day for the existing competent workforce to
take everything apart down to the pieces parts we used to in the days
gone by, though I still try to do it when the assembly cost is high
enough to warrant such detail work. Parts + labor = cost of repair, so
when one goes up, usually the other goes down. A profitable shop
usually has to replace engines and trannies or sublet the work out to
realize an overall profit on total operations. Usually only those set
up for such work can typically be profitable with overhauls in house.
I'm a hybrid so I do a little of everything, but I'm not nearly as
profitable as a good, well managed shop. The actual machine work still
gets sent out, other than rotors.
> Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new
> one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few
> folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or
> transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and
> buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my
> hands. Must be fucking nice to be able to just buy a new car when the
> need arises, huh? :-)
>
>
The other thing is that powertrain warranties are getting longer, so by
the time that an owner goes past his engine and trans coverage, the
units have proven not to have any fundamental assembly or design faults
and may prove to last a really long time into the future -- without the
owner ever spending any money on their failures within warranty.
>> Thanks, I'll look into that, practical limitations of the concept aside :-)
>>
>>
>
> Practical limitations do apply, but like you said...and I agree. Keep
> a car as long as you can....it is almost always cheaper to maintain
> than to replace.
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>Emission sensors are all "If they fail throw away and put in a new
>one", plastic parts cannot be repaired generally speaking, and few
>folks keep a car long enough to require an overhaul of the engine or
>transaxle. Most people bail out when one of those assemblies fail and
>buy a new car. I only wish I had that kind of disposable income on my
>hands. Must be fucking nice to be able to just buy a new car when the
>need arises, huh? :-)
>
Pretty much agree with what you said.
But my experience has been to bail out when the rust tells me to.
I suspect you live in a salt-free area.
I've rebuilt a couple engines and had a new long block put in one.
Didn't stop the rust from killing them in the end.
And some were sent to the boneyard when the fix expense would be a 1-2
year investment due to encroaching rust, not making it worth while.
It's always a balancing act.
--Vic
Hal
> But my experience has been to bail out when the rust tells me to.
I agree 100% on the rust issue. I am in the Phoenix area, so corrosion
is largely a non-issue for us here.
> I've rebuilt a couple engines and had a new long block put in one.
> Didn't stop the rust from killing them in the end.
Rust is a lot like cancer. Sure, you can cover it up, paint over it
and such, but in the end it is still there eating away at the
foundation.
Chris
HLS
> Wasn't that car 'hand destroyed' instead of assembly built? Does yours
> have the touch screen interface (inoperative, no doubt)?
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO
Yes, mine has the screen interface...Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesnt. It can be
"fixed" by taking it out and cleaning, replacing certain parts...But it will
only stay "fixed" a
few years.
It was hand built, has a number of computers intended to impress, no doubt,
some little
old bluehaired ladies, etc.
It is nice to drive, when it runs.
This and the Allante were not GM's better thought out projects. I thought
that with time
I could re-engineer, repair, this nice looking little coupe. It is a heart
breaker.
Mike
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OAd4m.6873$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Mike
it may be.
Apparently thousands of us previous owners did not agree with your personal
opinion or we would have purchased anther Toyota model.
I suggest you take a look at all of the Toyotas one will see in the used car
lots of non-Toyota dealership. If Toyotas were as good as you would have
others believe, why have so many of us traded ours on other brands?
I purchased seven Toyotas and six Lexus' in my time till I finally realized
they were no better or worse than other brands I have owned, just more
expensive to buy and maintain. Since I switched to domestic brands I have
saved thousand of dollar on the purchase price and hundred of dollars on
maintenance costs.
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0nb4m.7210$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
HLS
> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." ;)
Darn.. You must have changed your address line. Now I will have to
preventatively maintain my killfile.
Toyota MDT in MO
One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an
acceptable alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and
you're wrong.
HLS
> Mike wrote:
>> One might take note, there is no "at" in "preventive maintenance." ;)
>>
> One might stop bothering to correct the dictionary, as it is an acceptable
> alternate spelling. I've already been through this, and you're wrong.
>
> --
> Toyota MDT in MO
Absolutely correct.
There are often minor preferential differences between North American
English as well, such as
"orientated" and "oriented". Both are perfectly acceptable.
Mike
pronunciation of a word correct.
How often do we hear on TV or see in print that a person "pled guilty," when
the correct legal term is "pleaded guilty," or that Saddam was "Hung,"
rather than the correct term, "Hanged?"
When his wife was told by a reporter in Paris, where she lived that he was
hung, she laughed and said no he wasn't.
If any man had a choice, they were surely prefer the former over the later
LOL
"HLS" <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:U6r4m.5596$lv5....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
Toyota MDT in MO
You might want to proofread your scribble for grammatical and factual
accuracy, genius. LOL?.
"Today I pled My Cunt to reconsider his incorrect ideas concerning
grammar, and he just laughed out loud at the suggestion."
Pled = past tense = correct = eat it. Had you known that pled is also
acceptable as a past participle?
Surely you were prefer to type correctly, weren't you(?)
BTW, conventional and acceptable are two different concepts.
HLS
> Get real, acceptable to whom?. Conventional usage does not make an
> improper pronunciation of a word correct.
Both variants are acceptable in the English language variants. I didnt
say anything
about conventional usage.
"Pleaded" is listed as a colloquial usage in the Websters New World
Dictionary.
"Pled" or "plead" is perfectly acceptable as well.
Mike
thy sure isn't lawya's. LOL
"HLS" <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:Wos4m.3550$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Mike
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jms4m.7243$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Toyota MDT in MO
Yeah, well whomever "they" are, it's likely they haven't been schooled
(colloquialism) by a lowly mechanic on such points. Feel special. LOL
Toyota MDT in MO
Sweet comeback! LOL
Mike
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QIv4m.10469$Dx2....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Hal
> they were no better or worse than other brands I have owned, just more
> expensive to buy and maintain. Since I switched to domestic brands I have
> saved thousand of dollar on the purchase price and hundred of dollars on
> maintenance costs.
ELEVEN cars? Holy crap man.
I have never once purchased a domestic car. I watched my folks go
through the "American car" routine by way of a Chevy citation and two
Ford Tauruses. Every one of them was a complete piece of crap.
Actually, crap isn't the best word for it but there might be kids
listening.....
Now since you proclaim your loyalty to buying domestic
brands.....you'll have to tell me...what do you consider to be a
domestic car? A Toyota that is built in Kentucky, a KIA built in
Georgia, or a Chevy made in Canada, or a Dodge made in Mexico?
Best,
Chris
Toyota MDT in MO
Please be prepared for the "Ya' right. LOL" response that
signifies Mike as one of the premier debaters on usenet.
Mike
American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased from
American corporations.
A non-domestic vehicle IMO is one that is either imported or merely
assembled in north American by a foreign corporation that primarily uses
parts and MATERIALS that are either imported or supplied by other foreign
corporations, rather than north American parts and MATERIALS purchase from
American corporations, like those vehicles you mention.
Particularly onerous are those sold in the US by Japanese corporations who
take all of the profits, earned on what they sell in the US, back to Japan
US federal Corporate tax free.
. "Hal" <hal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78e1afe6-3320-4c19...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Hal
> American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased from
> American corporations.
Good lucking finding a car that meets your criteria. Name one. I dare
you. Hint: It isn't one of the cars you own now.
> A non-domestic vehicle IMO is one that is either imported or merely
> assembled in north American by a foreign corporation that primarily uses
> parts and MATERIALS that are either imported or supplied by other foreign
> corporations, rather than north American parts and MATERIALS purchase from
> American corporations, like those vehicles you mention.
Are you serious? You need to go re-read the window sticker on your
multitude of cars.
> Particularly onerous are those sold in the US by Japanese corporations who
> take all of the profits, earned on what they sell in the US, back to Japan
> US federal Corporate tax free.
You know what the real problem is here? It isn't the fact that you
didn't even bother to read my original post(read it again, you didn't
have 11 cars, you had 13....). It's obvious that basic math escapes
you.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler are marketing cars that they want to sell.
Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, and the rest of the imports are marketing
cars that people want to BUY. There's a big distinction there; you can
draw the line of differentiation between the companies begging for a
bailout, on on my dime I might add, versus the companies that are
selling cars without that flaming socialist ass hat Obama giving my
money to them.
You can take your opinion and shove it, guy. You're so full of it your
eyes are brown. Wake up and smell the coffee, your domestic car is
anything but.....
Best,
Chris
Toyota MDT in MO
>
>
> You know what the real problem is here? It isn't the fact that you
> didn't even bother to read my original post(read it again, you didn't
> have 11 cars, you had 13....). It's obvious that basic math escapes
> you.
>
>
So that was a trick? I was thinking that *you* had math difficulties :-)
Mike makes many claims that are hard to believe, but I'm sure they are
all true.
Hal
> > have 11 cars, you had 13....). It's obvious that basic math escapes
> > you.
>
> So that was a trick? I was thinking that *you* had math difficulties :-)
Indeed it was. Further, the Kia plant in Georgia isn't even open yet.
The guy doesn't read or comprehend before responding, he just throws
out his view as being the almighty correct one without bothering to
get the facts straight.
> Mike makes many claims that are hard to believe, but I'm sure they are
> all true.
No arguments on that here.
Best,
Chris
Scott Dorsey
>> To me a domestic vehicle is one that is built in north America by and
>> American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased from
>> American corporations.
>
>Good lucking finding a car that meets your criteria. Name one. I dare
>you. Hint: It isn't one of the cars you own now.
A '54 Hudson would fit the bill.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike
Ford LTD Brougham convertible, 1971 Pinto and a 1983 Continental Mark VI
Signature Sedan, as well as a 2009 Mustang GT convertible and a 2010 Lincoln
MKZ. The MKZ was made in Mexico ;)
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h38702$q08$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Dave D
>I own a 1941 Continental convertible, 1963 1/2 Mustang GT convertible, 1972
>Ford LTD Brougham convertible, 1971 Pinto and a 1983 Continental Mark VI
>Signature Sedan, as well as a 2009 Mustang GT convertible and a 2010
>Lincoln MKZ. The MKZ was made in Mexico ;)
Must be very, very rare as production on the Mustang did not start until
March of 1964. Hmmmm!!!
DaveD
Toyota MDT in MO
Interesting indeed. A full year early, and amazingly with the then
fairly rare GT package. Let me guess, his 63.5 Mustang GT also has the
original Boss 429. Naturally Mikey boy will claim a typo, LOL.
Mike
Actually Ford introduce the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred to it
as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
including taxes and fees.
The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford Coupe," as
PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA titled cars in
the year they were first titled.
As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is no
1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows. ;)
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Oi86m.17746$Dx2....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
razz
in april of 64, and was available to the public that same month. All other
mustangs previous to that were only Prototypes and were never sold to the
public.news:4a5a7f98$0$24960$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
Steve B.
>Actually the production mustang was unveiled at the worlds fair in new york
>in april of 64, and was available to the public that same month. All other
>mustangs previous to that were only Prototypes and were never sold to the
>public.
This was my understanding as well. The first Mustang was available
for sale on April 7th 1964. They sold 22 some odd thousand on the
first day. The 64 is often referred to as a 64 1/2 because of the
late release date.
Steve B.
Toyota MDT in MO
> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
>
>
No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.
> Actually Ford introduce the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred to it
> as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
>
>
> I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
> including taxes and fees.
> The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
>
> The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford Coupe," as
> PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA titled cars in
> the year they were first titled.
>
> As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is no
> 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows. ;)
>
>
>
No you haven't.
Mike
was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to as a
1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is 64
and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XxF6m.7421$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Mike wrote:
>> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
>>
>>
>
> No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.
>
>> Actually Ford introduced the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred
Toyota MDT in MO
> Of course you are correct, at 83 years old and after over seventy cars, I
> was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to as a
> 1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is 64
> and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
So in all of those bets that you won at car shows, no one saw that the
title was for a Falcon Sprint? They couldn't ID the VIN, given these
were car guys that usually know their car history shit? Do you feel
compelled now to refund all of your earnings since you were wrong the
whole time? Were you 83 at the time, and does that explain why you
didn't know what cars you own?
> "Toyota MDT in MO" <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:XxF6m.7421$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> >> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
>
> > No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.
>
> >> Actually Ford introduced the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred
> >> to it as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
>
> >> I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
> >> including taxes and fees.
> >> The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
>
> >> The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford Coupe,"
> >> as PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA titled
> >> cars in the year they were first titled.
>
> >> As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is no
> >> 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows. ;)
>
> > No you haven't.
>
> >> "Toyota MDT in MO" <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Oi86m.17746$Dx2....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> >>> Dave D wrote:
>
> >>>> "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:4a57a72d$0$24993$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
>
> >>>>> I own a 1941 Continental convertible, 1963 1/2 Mustang GT convertible,
> >>>>> 1972 Ford LTD Brougham convertible, 1971 Pinto and a 1983 Continental
> >>>>> Mark VI Signature Sedan, as well as a 2009 Mustang GT convertible and
> >>>>> a 2010 Lincoln MKZ. The MKZ was made in Mexico ;)
>
> >>>> Very interesting Mike...How much would you take for that 63 1/2
> >>>> Mustang? Must be very, very rare as production on the Mustang did not
> >>>> start until March of 1964. Hmmmm!!!
>
> >>>> DaveD
>
> >>>>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:h38702$q08$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
> >>>>>> Hal <hala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> To me a domestic vehicle is one that is built in north America by
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> American corporations.
>
> >>>>>>> Good lucking finding a car that meets your criteria. Name one. I
> >>>>>>> dare
> >>>>>>> you. Hint: It isn't one of the cars you own now.
>
> >>>>>> A '54 Hudson would fit the bill.
> >>>>>> --scott
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> >>> Interesting indeed. A full year early, and amazingly with the then
> >>> fairly rare GT package. Let me guess, his 63.5 Mustang GT also has the
> >>> original Boss 429. Naturally Mikey boy will claim a typo, LOL.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Toyota MDT in MO
>
> > --
> > Toyota MDT in MO- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tegger
news:4a5a7f98$0$24960$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net:
> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
>
> Actually Ford introduce the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred
> to it as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
>
>
> I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
> including taxes and fees.
> The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
>
> The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford
> Coupe," as PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day
> PA titled cars in the year they were first titled.
>
> As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is
> no 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows. ;)
>
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=17987
Excerpt from above:
"The story details Mustang's famed world introduction at the 1964 World's
Fair in New York [April '64] as Mustang #1 travels the Canadian landscape
on a public relations tour. Then the unexplicable - the car accidentally
falls into the hands of an airplane pilot who, unaware of the car's
significance, drives it for two years and more than 10,000 miles before
Ford exchanges another milestone Mustang for it"
More from about half-way down that page:
"While the public first saw the car on April 17, the first production
models rolled off the assembly line in early March since dealers needed to
stock showrooms to capitalize on the upcoming national reveal. The vehicle
identification number (VIN) for the first-ever Mustang was 5F08F100001,"
--
Tegger
HLS
"razz" <ra...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:7vv6m.71942$S16....@newsfe23.iad...
> Actually the production mustang was unveiled at the worlds fair in new
> york in april of 64, and was available to the public that same month. All
> other mustangs previous to that were only Prototypes and were never sold
> to the public.
Never brought into production was the Mustang I, a car that made us
salivate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_I
A couple were made, and at least one of them showed up at a race track
and took some fast laps.
jim
Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 10:43 am, "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > Of course you are correct, at 83 years old and after over seventy cars, I
> > was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to as a
> > 1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is 64
> > and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
>
> So in all of those bets that you won at car shows, no one saw that the
> title was for a Falcon Sprint? They couldn't ID the VIN, given these
> were car guys that usually know their car history shit? Do you feel
> compelled now to refund all of your earnings since you were wrong the
> whole time? Were you 83 at the time, and does that explain why you
> didn't know what cars you own?
Give him a break. He said he is old and can't remember. Who knows maybe
the part he has forgotten is that he lost every single bet.
-jim