Unbelievable
dizzy
>The fact is every manufacturer today is building great cars, the only real
>difference among them is style and price.
I was just curious today, wondering if the "Mike Hunt" top-poster is
still saying how great GM is.
So, I visit this group for like the first time in 2 years (I would
guess) - sort on authur, find "Mike", and click on one message, at
random.
The above is what I found. The SAME statement (lie) that he was
making YEARS ago. The SAME statement (lie) that has been REBUKED
God-knows-how-MANY times!
For how many YEARS has this troll been repeating this SAME nonsense?
HOW many times has he repeated this SAME lie? And WHAT motivates this
"broken record" behavior?
Unbelievable!
Anyways, is "Mike" still defending GM with idiocies like "more people
buy their cars, therefore they must be the best"?
JoeSpareBedroom
news:nb5255peff4d6evro...@4ax.com...
What motivates him? "Motivates" is too positive a word. "Causes" is more
accurate. What you're seeing are his symptoms, and I'm quite sure this is
the cause:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/uncle-jemimas-pure-mash-liqour/2584/
Hachiroku ハチロク
> "Mike" top-posted:
>
>>The fact is every manufacturer today is building great cars, the only real
>>difference among them is style and price.
>
> I was just curious today, wondering if the "Mike Hunt" top-poster is
> still saying how great GM is.
>
> So, I visit this group for like the first time in 2 years (I would
> guess) - sort on authur, find "Mike", and click on one message, at
> random.
How's the Supra?
matrixxx09
Yeah, that last statement is whacky.
But, to be fair, there's a difference between "GM is great" and "GM
(along with every manufacturer) is building great cars."
It is perfectly acceptable to have the opinion that these days all of
the major manufacturers are building great cars.
As an example, can you tell me why the 2009 Chevy Malibu isn't a great
car?
Mike
All manufactures make some that are not up to snuff, that is why they ALL
offer a warranty even Rolls Royce. Survey after survey constantly show
that ALL manufactures build around 2% that are problematic, the save average
as ALL manufactured products
You may think what I post is wrong but a search of the US D.O.C site will
verify the FACT that GM has continuously outsold ALL other brands in the US.
Obviously logic says MORE buyers MUST believe they are buying what they
believe to the best vehicles for their money or they would not continue to
buy them, dummy. What YOU choose to believe, or not, is immaterial.
"matrixxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7df29aae-e46a-47ff...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:11 pm, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Mike" top-posted:
>
> >The fact is every manufacturer today is building great cars, the only
> >real
> >difference among them is style and price.
>
> I was just curious today, wondering if the "Mike Hunt" top-poster is
> still saying how great GM is.
>
> So, I visit this group for like the first time in 2 years (I would
> guess) - sort on authur, find "Mike", and click on one message, at
> random.
>
> The above is what I found. The SAME statement (lie) that he was
> making YEARS ago. The SAME statement (lie) that has been REBUKED
> God-knows-how-MANY times!
>
> HOW many times has he repeated this SAME lie? And WHAT motivates this
> "broken record" behavior?
>
> Unbelievable!
>
> Anyways, is "Mike" still defending GM with idiocies like "more people
> buy their cars, therefore they must be the best"?
It is perfectly acceptable to have the opinion that these days all of
matrixxxx09
> For the same reason someone's Toyota, Chrysler, Honda etc., is a BAD car.
> All manufactures make some that are not up to snuff, that is why they ALL
> offer a warranty even Rolls Royce. Survey after survey constantly show
> that ALL manufactures build around 2% that are problematic, the save average
> as ALL manufactured products
>
> You may think what I post is wrong but a search of the US D.O.C site will
> verify the FACT that GM has continuously outsold ALL other brands in the US.
>
> Obviously logic says MORE buyers MUST believe they are buying what they
> believe to the best vehicles for their money or they would not continue to
> buy them, dummy. What YOU choose to believe, or not, is immaterial.
>
>
> news:7df29aae-e46a-47ff...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 5:11 pm, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike" top-posted:
>
> > >The fact is every manufacturer today is building great cars, the only
> > >real
> > >difference among them is style and price.
>
> > I was just curious today, wondering if the "Mike Hunt" top-poster is
> > still saying how great GM is.
>
> > So, I visit this group for like the first time in 2 years (I would
> > guess) - sort on authur, find "Mike", and click on one message, at
> > random.
>
> > The above is what I found. The SAME statement (lie) that he was
> > making YEARS ago. The SAME statement (lie) that has been REBUKED
> > God-knows-how-MANY times!
>
> > HOW many times has he repeated this SAME lie? And WHAT motivates this
> > "broken record" behavior?
>
> > Unbelievable!
>
> > Anyways, is "Mike" still defending GM with idiocies like "more people
> > buy their cars, therefore they must be the best"?
>
> It is perfectly acceptable to have the opinion that these days all of
> the major manufacturers are building great cars.
>
> As an example, can you tell me why the 2009 Chevy Malibu isn't a great
> car?
So your answer to the question is "For the same reason someone's
Toyota, Chrysler, Honda etc., is a BAD car.". That's not a very good
answer. See why?
Regarding what you contend "...logic says...", let me correct you.
Just because a company is the biggest doesn't mean it offers what
"more buyers must believe...to [be] the best vehicles...". There are
many reasons that a person would choose to buy from a particular
company, and having the best product for the money is only one of
them.
In this case, it could easily be that many people look to the American
car companies because they want to 'buy American'. Some look at both
but have a bias from day one, making them more likely to buy
American. Many ONLY buy American.
On the other hand, there are likely a lot fewer people who do the
opposite. I say this because we live in America. On a personal note,
I've met people who claimed they won't buy a Japanese car under any
circumstances. On the other hand I haven't yet encountered anyone who
says they won' buy and American car under any circumstances.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:4a522971$0$24977$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> You may think what I post is wrong but a search of the US D.O.C site will
> verify the FACT that GM has continuously outsold ALL other brands in the
> US.
>
> Obviously logic says MORE buyers MUST believe they are buying what they
> believe to the best vehicles for their money or they would not continue to
> buy them, dummy. What YOU choose to believe, or not, is immaterial.
They outsell all other brands for the same reason Oscar Mayer sells so much
bologna: It's cheap. But it's not good for you.
SMS
> Except the customers finally stopped coming back, and GM et al. are
> reaping the rewards of their efforts.
What Mike doesn't understand is that buyers nowadays look beyond how
reliable a vehicle is during the relatively short warranty period,
because people are keeping their vehicles longer. It may be an annoyance
to have a car repaired during the warranty period, but at least it's at
no cost.
The latest J.D. Power Long Term study gave Toyota a top rating of five
circles, and Ford a rating of three circles. But this is only a three
year rating.
Look at which vehicles are most reliable in the long term Canadian
study. Look at which 10+ year old vehicles you see the most on the road.
By far its Toyotas and Hondas (Camrys and Corollas, Accords and Civics).
I don't know what the solution is for Ford and GM. You can't easily
rebuild trust. Perhaps they should offer longer warranties, i.e. 10 year
bumper to bumper to allay reliability concerns.
Mike
but according to the US D.O.C. site only around 2% of new car buyers keep
their vehicle more than seven years. What I do understand is that buyers
have always 'voted' with their hard earned money and currently both GM and
Ford are outselling Toyota and Honda LOL
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:Lor4m.11210$aX1....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
JoeSpareBedroom
"Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a52485d$0$24982$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
Mike
the same size and with the same equipment and when it comes to cars one does
not eat them LOL
"Joe$#itForBrains" <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:5yq4m.10844$DA1....@newsfe25.iad...
Mike
coverage for a customer when the warranty on their vehicle has expired, if
that is what you believe, I have LOL
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-46207A....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <4a522971$0$24977$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net>,
> "Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> For the same reason someone's Toyota, Chrysler, Honda etc., is a BAD car.
>> All manufactures make some that are not up to snuff, that is why they ALL
>> offer a warranty even Rolls Royce.
>
> That's correct, My Cunt.
>
> Except:
>
> 1) the ODDS of having to deal with a badly built car increase
> TREMENDOUSLY when you buy a GM or Ford or Chrysler, and DECREASE to
> almost zero--comparatively speaking--when buying a Honda or Toyota or
> Nissan. It's MUCH easier to spend $25,000 when you know the ODDS are
> that you didn't throw it down the drain.
>
> 2) Honda (for example) has a culture that works WITH the customer (even
> if any individual dealership doesn't). GM and Ford and Chrysler, on the
> other hand, have spent years telling the customer "hey, you bought it,
> it's your problem not ours". In other words, Honda has spent a lot of
> effort on long term loyalty, while GM et al. have told their customers
> to "fuck off, we don't have to take care of you, we know you'll come
> back in two years anyway".
Mike
anything else for that matter, if they thought it was NOT the best buy for
their money? LOL
"matrixxxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f88f003b-a649-4558...@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Hachiroku ハチロク
Because Toyota's quality is more consistent than GM's (lack of) quality.
The chances of getting a lemon from Toyota, last I remember, was 2 in 1000
cars.
I never really looked at the figures for GM, but from what people tell me,
you might get a *good* one in 500...
JoeSpareBedroom
Some people (with no tax-advantage reasons for doing so) love to lease cars
because the payments are lower and they NEVER keep cars for very long. For
them, it's worth leasing a piece of GM shit because by the time the engine
begins to stink like a 35 year old Blazer, they won't own it anyway.
Other people want to be sure that at 150K miles, their cars will still run
beautifully. Different version of "best buy". I've got 75K on my Tacoma. My
mechanic whines about "no service" (other than brakes, oil, tires). My
Taurus cost almost $2000 for bullshit repairs after five years of ownership.
I can't imagine what a GM car would be like.
"Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a524b8f$0$24999$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
Mike
NGs?
"Joe$3itForBrains" <news...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:cQr4m.10852$DA1....@newsfe25.iad...
Mike
other manufactures for that matter, at around 1.5% which is the average per
100 vehicles.
.
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>
SMS
> Other people want to be sure that at 150K miles, their cars will still run
> beautifully. Different version of "best buy". I've got 75K on my Tacoma. My
> mechanic whines about "no service" (other than brakes, oil, tires). My
> Taurus cost almost $2000 for bullshit repairs after five years of ownership.
> I can't imagine what a GM car would be like.
It's interesting to look at the study at
"http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf"
Import survival rates had their biggest drop in survival rates between
10-13 years, while domestics had their biggest drop 5 and 8 years. This
pretty much jives with what you actually see on the road these days in
terms of non-classics and non-luxury vehicles. You see a lot less 10-15
year old domestic nameplate vehicles than you do 10-15 year old import
nameplates. The reasons may not be so clear for this. It could be that
the imports are bought more by educated and higher income buyers who are
more likely to spend the necessary money on proper maintenance.
The whole "nameplate" business is kind of annoying. You're as likely to
buy a Toyota made in Kentucky or a Honda made in Ohio as you are likely
to buy a GM, Ford, or Chrysler actually made in the U.S. (and not just
North America). You're doing a lot more to help the U.S. by buying a
Toyota from Kentucky than a Chevy from Mexico!
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Toyota is less than 2%. The surveys all show both GM and Toyota, and most
> other manufactures for that matter, at around 1.5% which is the average per
> 100 vehicles.
They must be sending all the bad ones to New England...
Mike
According to the US D.O C., over 52% of the Toyotas sold in the US are
imports, the feat are made in North America not the US. All the profits
earned in the US by Japanese corporations goes back to Japan, US Corporate
tax free, to be redistributed to the Japanese Corporations.
On the other hand around 80% of the vehicles sold by GM and Ford in the US
are made North America.
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:hNs4m.3519$vO4...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
JoeSpareBedroom
if it comes from Mars.
"Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a52601f$0$24963$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
dizzy
>For the same reason someone's Toyota, Chrysler, Honda etc., is a BAD car.
>All manufactures make some that are not up to snuff, that is why they ALL
>offer a warranty even Rolls Royce.
Idiot.
>Survey after survey constantly show
>that ALL manufactures build around 2% that are problematic, the save average
>as ALL manufactured products
>
>You may think what I post is wrong but a search of the US D.O.C site
LOL
Just like your old, classic, "search the congression record" BS.
>will verify the FACT that GM has continuously outsold ALL other brands in the US.
Liar.
At LEAST you've started to add the "in the US" qualifier, which you
used to not do.
>Obviously logic says MORE buyers MUST believe they are buying what they
>believe to the best vehicles for their money or they would not continue to
>buy them, dummy.
You are lying again, "Mike". Many people still do not even consider
foreign brands.
> What YOU choose to believe, or not, is immaterial.
Still defending GM. What an asshole!
dizzy
>As an example, can you tell me why the 2009 Chevy Malibu isn't a great
>car?
It's FWD, for one thing, making "good" the best it can hope to
achieve.
dizzy
Fine. I still have it. It still runs like new. Better, actually,
with the aftermarket exhaust. 8)
dizzy
>What I do understand is that buyers
>have always 'voted' with their hard earned money and currently both GM and
>Ford are outselling Toyota and Honda
I see you're still a bald-faced liar, "Mike".
Oh, and for a *truly* fair test, check the sales figures in a country
were none of the companies have "the home field advantage", troll.
Can you say "they don't want GM junk"? LOL
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>Obviously logic says MORE buyers MUST believe they are buying what they
>>believe to the best vehicles for their money or they would not continue to
>>buy them, dummy.
>
> You are lying again, "Mike". Many people still do not even consider
> foreign brands.
Some of us don't ever consider US brands...
Hachiroku ハチロク
Illegal in The People's Republic of Mass.
Or, it has to be no louder than stock.
matrixxxx09
What's so wrong with FWD that having it automatically disqualifies a
car from being anything better than just 'good'?
dizzy
Google it. Learn up.
dizzy
For dispassionate, "what's the best car" decisions. Obviously,
quite-unlike the "refuse to buy a foreign car" crowd.
Mike
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fql755pck5n1nb4au...@4ax.com...
JoeSpareBedroom
1) Millions of people in the snow belt would disagree with you.
2) What do you feel is better than FWD?
dizzy
>> Google it. Learn up.
>
>1) Millions of people in the snow belt would disagree with you.
Millions of people voted for Bush-league.
>2) What do you feel is better than FWD?
See above.
Surely you've noticed that ALL the BEST cars are RWD (or AWD).
Hachiroku ハチロク
The poor man has never owned a Supra...or a Hachiroku...
A lot of people haven't. Such a shame...
BTW, I found my Scion is based on an AWD platform sold in Japan and other
parts of the world. RWD is kind of an easy adaptation... ;)
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Dizzy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Where the HELL have you been?????
You told him not to let the door slap him in the ass, remember?
Hachiroku ハチロク
But I tell a lie. I went to look at an HHR. I liked the old "Pie wagons"
from the 50's and 60's.
They had a 2.4L AT on the lot. Damn thing couldn't get out of it's own way.
I told them to call me when they got the 175HP 5-speed version in.
I went to the dealer last week to repair a computer there. I said, Where's
my 5-speed HHR?
The guy said, when did you ask for it?
Three years ago.
Don't hold your breath. I haven't seen one myself.
Then he said, And you wonder why GM can't sell cars? (and muttered, you're
better off without it...)
JoeSpareBedroom
RWD:
Crown Victoria
Pickup trucks & SUVs
Please list others.
matrixxxx09
>
> >What's so wrong with FWD that having it automatically disqualifies a
> >car from being anything better than just 'good'?
>
> Google it. Learn up.
I suspected you didn't have a good reason.
Mike
FWD is more expensive to build because there is more off the assembly line
pre-assembly required resulting in FWD costing more to buy, more to maintain
and repair, as well as more to insure.
More importantly FWD does not handle as well at speed and is far more
dangerous, when traction is less than ideal, because the simple act of
removing ones foot from the throttle can cause engine braking of the
steering wheels and the loss of steering control. ;)
"matrixxxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be5e895c-eb01-4689...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Mike
that of the other sent there, I would guess.
"Scott in Florida" <Mov...@outa.here> wrote in message
news:921855hmb5s8jb7l2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:17:55 GMT, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Dizzy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Where the HELL have you been?????
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
matrixxx09
> That's easy! As a retired automotive engineer I can tell you,
Good, someone who knows what he's talking about.
>Vis A v RWD,
> FWD is more expensive to build because there is more off the assembly line
> pre-assembly required resulting in FWD costing more to buy,
How much more? For example, are there two identical (or at least
close to identical) cars, one RWD and one FWD that we can compare?
I'm curious.
>more to maintain
> and repair,
What do you mean? FWD is less reliable? I ask because I don't recall
ever having a problem that was associated with the fact that my car
was AWD. Maybe I've been lucky.
>as well as more to insure.
Same question as above: How much, and are there two we could compare
to test this?
>
> More importantly FWD does not handle as well at speed
what does 'at speed' mean?
>and is far more
> dangerous, when traction is less than ideal, because the simple act of
> removing ones foot from the throttle can cause engine braking of the
> steering wheels and the loss of steering control. ;)
I've always heard that RWD vehicles fishtail more easily. Is that not
true?
Finally, your email begs the question: If RWD are cheaper to build
and more reliable, and also safer, why are FWDs made in the first
place?
I get the sense that there is much more to it...of course you were
limited to a post on a newsgroup, but still...
And I'm not invested in what the 'answer' to this is, if there is
one. There are no RWD cars I want, so even if I find out you're 100%
right, my next car will still be FWD.
But I'm curious.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> There are no RWD cars I want
You sure about that?
matrixxx09
haha.
Let me rephrase. There are no RWD drive cars that I would buy for any
of the pragmatic reasons that we were discussing.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Oh. OK.
I sure would like 260MPH from the factory!
Jeff Strickland
"matrixxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca199709-ec87-421b...@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
But I'm curious.
I'm not sure what the discussion is, but I have to chime in on the benefits
or the lack thereof of FWD vs. RWD.
I do not buy the idea that FWD is more costly to build. From a production
stand point, the drive train assembly is done off of the line in both
configurations, then dropped into place. Indeed, once the FWD drive train is
dropped in, the job is done, when the engine/transmission unit is dropped
in, the drive shaft has to be connected, which tells me there is an extra
step, not fewer steps.
Having said that, I don't understand why anybody would refuse to even
consider a RWD vehicle. There is nothing to stay away from in a RWD car, and
nothing in a FWD that makes it inherently better than RWD. I think there is
nothing wrong with FWD, but there is soemthing wrong with refusing RWD
simply because it is RWD.
Fistailing in RWD is certainly a behavior that RWD will never exhibit. But,
if you lose traction in a FWD car and begin to slide, the natural tendency
to counter steer (turn the steering wheel in the direction of the slide)
will only make your life much worse very quickly. I'll give you points on
the FWD though, if the car is moving slowly on snow or ice, it is far easier
to control than a RWD car in the same conditions. But, aggressive driving on
a winding road is a better experience with RWD than FWD, and if the FWD car
is driven beyond the limits of tire adhesion -- the car slides -- the
corrective measure from the driver seat is exactly opposite of what you
would have a natural tendency (reaction) to do, and this mistake can have
catastrophic effects.
As for reliability and maintenance costs, there is little data to support
that FWD or RWD is a factor in these issues. There is a substantially
greater data set that says the manufacturer's ability to design and build a
car plays a bigger role in FWD or RWD. For example (and maybe a poor
example, but I'm going with it anyway) A Volvo is an expensive car to fix,
and it is FWD. A BMW is also an expensive car to fix, and it is RWD. A
Mustang and a Fusion have roughly similar repair costs, but one is FWD and
the other is RWD. Both are Fords. Honda and Toyota FWD cars have among the
lowest maintenance costs in the industry. The flagship models of both are
FWD cars.
matrixxx09
> On 2009-07-08 14:00:10 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Let me rephrase. There are no RWD drive cars that I would buy for any
> > of the pragmatic reasons that we were discussing.
>
> So a Bimmer or a G37 coupe is out of the question?
Bimmer - yes, out of the question.
G37 - yes, but only because there are others I'd prefer of that type.
Mike
first became on the market in the US in volume. You will see the much
bigger RWD V8 Chrysler New Yorker 500 was available for around $2,000 less
than the much smaller 4 cy FWD New Yorker that eventfully replaced the 500
over time to meet CAFE.
GM made the mistake of going to FWD in all of its models. In comparison,
the European luxury and performance car manufacturers never went to RWD and
GM but went back to RWD on is luxury cars to compete. Ford construed to
offer RWD on it large cars as well
The 1981 FWD Escort, the replacement for the 1980 Pinto with a smaller
engine, cost $1,200 more than the Pinto and Ford did not start to make money
on the Escort for nearly two years after it was on the market
You deleted my post but I don't recall saying FWD was not reliable. I said
it cost more to maintain, repair and insure. As to at speed that means
normal driving speeds. FWD is better than RWD is unplowed snow but not
nearly as save in wet or icy conditions because of the loss of steering
control I pointed too.
FWD came into being because federal regulations were forcing the
manufactures to build smaller cars for they high volume models, at the time.
To make cars that would carry five passenger, rather than the four
passengers cars common to smaller RWD cars a the time they went to FWD.
The fact is American do not inherently want to buy smaller cars! If you
look at most every manufacturer today you will see their best selling models
are not their small car but their mid-size cars. The Japs did not become
volume sellers in the US until they started to make mid sized cars.
As to safety of FWD cars, the federal government gave FWD cars to state
police departments, back in the day, to enforce the new federal 55 MPH speed
limit, know as the "55 Alive program."
Three Pennsylvania state troopers where killed and anther dozen injured in
high speed pursuits on wet roads in the first 18 months. To this day the
PSP does not use ANY FWD cars for patrol duty as a result. The few FWD
cars they do buy are used only in investigative work or driven by high
ranking officials, all unmarked.
One of my children is a PSP Trooper who uses a Chevy FWD PSP car and there
is a sticker on the dash stating the vehicle can not be used to patrol.
As to repair costs, for example it cost far more to change a clutch disc on
a FWD car than a RWD car, for obvious reasons.
As to insurance costs, call you agent and ask the cost to insure a Taurus
and a Crown Vic and see for yourself or just look under the hood. If you
hit something that pushes into the front end a foot and half you may take
out the fan and water pimp on a CV but you will be into the motor and tranny
of a Taurus.
If you look at ALL of the performance cars, the only ones that sell well are
RWD, not FWD
As to cost of maintenance, the Lexus dealer, where I bought my cars charges,
a labor rate that is $40 an hour more then my domestic dealer charges me for
my current 2010 luxury car. The dealer that services my 2009 sporty car
charges, $25 less than the Toyota dealer where I previously bough my
Toyotas. ;)
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h334en$mi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jeff Strickland
"Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a5634c6$0$24963$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> As an example of two that quickly come to mind, look back to when FWD cars
> first became on the market in the US in volume. You will see the much
> bigger RWD V8 Chrysler New Yorker 500 was available for around $2,000 less
> than the much smaller 4 cy FWD New Yorker that eventfully replaced the 500
> over time to meet CAFE.
>
> GM made the mistake of going to FWD in all of its models. In comparison,
> the European luxury and performance car manufacturers never went to RWD
> and GM but went back to RWD on is luxury cars to compete. Ford construed
> to offer RWD on it large cars as well
>
> The 1981 FWD Escort, the replacement for the 1980 Pinto with a smaller
> engine, cost $1,200 more than the Pinto and Ford did not start to make
> money on the Escort for nearly two years after it was on the market
>
But the Escort also had a thousand dollars of safety improvements over the
Pinto. That comparison is pretty weak, Mike.
> You deleted my post but I don't recall saying FWD was not reliable. I
> said it cost more to maintain, repair and insure. As to at speed that
> means normal driving speeds. FWD is better than RWD is unplowed snow but
> not nearly as save in wet or icy conditions because of the loss of
> steering control I pointed too.
>
> FWD came into being because federal regulations were forcing the
> manufactures to build smaller cars for they high volume models, at the
> time. To make cars that would carry five passenger, rather than the four
> passengers cars common to smaller RWD cars a the time they went to FWD.
>
That's not entirely accurate. Oldsmobile came out with the Toronado in the
early '70s, late '60s that was a FWD, long before anybody was looking at
small cars. The FWD Olds was essentially a Buick Riviera sized car --
basically a full size or perhaps a luxury size car like a Cadillac.
> The fact is American do not inherently want to buy smaller cars! If you
> look at most every manufacturer today you will see their best selling
> models are not their small car but their mid-size cars. The Japs did not
> become volume sellers in the US until they started to make mid sized cars.
>
I generally agree with that. Not completely, but I go with the gist of the
point you are making.
> As to safety of FWD cars, the federal government gave FWD cars to state
> police departments, back in the day, to enforce the new federal 55 MPH
> speed limit, know as the "55 Alive program."
>
I think the problem for the State Troopers is that at high speeds -- as in a
pursuit, which we all can agree that copps can and should be in from time to
time -- the FWD cars get into a drift and the natural instinct to steer into
the drift will cause a FWD car to instantly get into a much worse situation,
it will spin out of control. The cops were taught pursuit techniques in a
RWD, and the slide is controlled by turning the wheel in the direction the
back of car is going, but a FWD car should have the steering wheel cranked
even further towards where you want the car to actually go and the gas
should be mashed. If the pedal is lifted or the wheel is turned the wrong
way, or if both happen, the situation for the trooper goes from bad to
worse.
> Three Pennsylvania state troopers where killed and anther dozen injured
> in high speed pursuits on wet roads in the first 18 months. To this day
> the PSP does not use ANY FWD cars for patrol duty as a result. The few
> FWD cars they do buy are used only in investigative work or driven by high
> ranking officials, all unmarked.
>
> One of my children is a PSP Trooper who uses a Chevy FWD PSP car and there
> is a sticker on the dash stating the vehicle can not be used to patrol.
>
Not to patrol or not to pursue? There is no reason the car can't be used for
patrol, I've highlighted several of the reasons not to pursue.
> As to repair costs, for example it cost far more to change a clutch disc
> on a FWD car than a RWD car, for obvious reasons.
>
> As to insurance costs, call you agent and ask the cost to insure a Taurus
> and a Crown Vic and see for yourself or just look under the hood. If you
> hit something that pushes into the front end a foot and half you may take
> out the fan and water pimp on a CV but you will be into the motor and
> tranny of a Taurus.
>
> If you look at ALL of the performance cars, the only ones that sell well
> are RWD, not FWD
>
> As to cost of maintenance, the Lexus dealer, where I bought my cars
> charges, a labor rate that is $40 an hour more then my domestic dealer
> charges me for my current 2010 luxury car. The dealer that services my
> 2009 sporty car charges, $25 less than the Toyota dealer where I
> previously bough my Toyotas. ;)
>
The dealership overhead -- cost of the building, and so on -- drives the
cost of labor. The only way to measure the different costs of service is to
compare the service costs at a dealership where they service both RWD and
FWD cars. If there is a higher cost for FWD, then your point is valid.
Comparing the cost of Lexus service and the cost of Toyota service or Ford
service isn't going to be an apples and apples comparison.
If your Cadillac dealer is in an older building and has been there for a
very long time, it can have a labor cost that is lower than the new Lexus
dealership where the cost of land is an order of magnitude greater than at
the Caddy store. If your Caddy and your Lexus are serviced in an Auto Park
where the stores are all of similar ages, then the labor costs should be
roughly equivelent since the overhead would arguably be similar.
Mike
were in effect in 1981.
What part of, " federal regulations were forcing the manufactures to build
smaller cars for their HIGH VOLUME MODELS, at the time." did you not
understand? The Toro and Riv were hardly high volume and did little to
help CAFE.
That may be your opinion but the fact remains when the FRONT end losses
traction, because of engine braking, steering control is lost period.
The proper way to correct the problem is to depress the clutch, or move the
selector into neutral on an automatic, to allow the steering wheels to turn
at the speed of the vehicle to regain traction.
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h35e2k$lbs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...