Astro/Safari reliabilty
mpea...@my-deja.com
am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize vans.
Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been given
a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs were
needed, etc...
I have owned a 88 Delta 88 Olds, 89 Ford Mustang 5.0, and a 95 Mercury
Villager. Had very good experiences with all except the Olds. It seemed
like a nice car on the dealers lot. But it started to rattle after only
7 months. Had it in the shop no less than 5 times in the first year.
After a while I came to the conclusion it wasn't built very well. Only
kept it about 18 months.
Don't get me wrong, I know GM makes good cars. The one I got just wasn't
very good.
Any input on the vans would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Marty
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kate H.
>a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average),
Boy, that's pretty bad. You don't quote your source--but I also did my
research before purchasing and never saw anything that bad. Ratings were all
favorable that I saw except for the same complaint--the size of the
passenger-side footwell.
~~~Kate
1998 GMC Safari
1999 Coleman Cheyenne
"My Child is an Honor Student at Domestica Schola" ;)
"These ARE the good old days!"
mpea...@my-deja.com
http://www.consumerreports.org/Categories/CarsTrucks/Reports/0004rel0.ht
m
I ignored most of the info, as what I am looking for is very
different than what they are looking for. But the reliability ratings
were hard to ignore. Where did you get those favorable ratings? I would
like more opinions besides consumer reports. Did you find the
passenger-side footwell too cramped? I assume you haven't had any major
problems?
Thanks,
Marty
In article <20001114161909...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
mounta...@mindspring.invalid
>Did you find the
>passenger-side footwell too cramped? I assume you haven't had any major
>problems?
Hi, Marty -
Pardon me for jumping in, but I always have an opinion on the Safari's
foot room. ;-) I'm no expert but I've had a 1992 Safari since it had 19
miles on the odometer. However, some idiot ran a yield sign and totaled
it on Nov. 5, so I'm in the market for a new one, 1996 to 2000 depending
on what the credit union will loan me <crossing fingers!>.
We've taken 8 or 10 long trips and we usually drive 12-hour days. The
lack of foot room was a medium nuisance but nothing that would make me
choose a different van. I could stretch out one leg at a time. I just
looked at some 2000 models this afternoon and the foot room looks better
(that change occurred in 1996 according to some other folks here), but I
still don't think it looks wide enough to stretch both legs out at once.
As for problems, I can only speak for my 1992. We took it home with 19
miles on the odometer. At 90 miles the anti-lock brakes completely
failed, fortunately not causing an accident. Since then we've called it
an anti-brake brake system. Later there was a recall on this. The
idler arms were bad by 26,000 miles. We suspected both problems were
because the dealer didn't do their prep work properly before we bought
the van. Other than that, the only money we've spent on it has been for
normal maintenance or adding accessories.
We've found this time of year is a good time to buy. Last time we
bought the end of model year in October and got a van loaded with
accessories for $2000 less than a bare-bones new model year. Our dealer
has a similar savings this year, only $3000 less.
--
Margo in Florida
1984 Coleman Cape Cod, totaled 1992 GMC Safari :-(
replace "invalid" with "com" to email
Mark
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/gmc/safari/2drslepassengervanextended.html
Edmunds rates these vans quite highly in all regards except
comfort--which is pretty average.
I have a '97 and I chose it especially for it's ruggedness. The
chassis is truck-like, and the entire drivetrain is basically a
time-proven S-10 setup. I have had a couple reliability problems I
feel are manufacturer shortcomings. My steering pump shaft snapped
this summer--I have no idea why THAT would happen. Fluid level was
always perfect. The steering always did whine a bit--still does with
new pump. Bad steering rack? Beats me...
Also my trans begins to shift very hard (jarring) after awhile on the
highway. Others have reported this problem, but I don't know what the
fix is yet.
And yes, the foot room is inadequate, but tolerable.
What annoys me most is the lack of some of the gee-whiz goodies that
minivans are known for. Cup holders are a joke. No console. Seats
can be removed (unless you get the captains chairs--they BOLT in.
Surprize!) but they weigh a ton & will mess up yer back if you don't
get a helper.
Despite these complaints I still like my van & feel it's the best
choice for towing with a minivan. Not the best choice for style,
comfort, economy, prestige, conveniences. But who cares about that
crap?! LOL
Mark
'97 Safari
'96 Cheyenne
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:00:18 GMT, mpea...@my-deja.com wrote:
}Hi all. I currently have a Mercury Villager and a Jayco 12UDK popup
and
}am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
}newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize
vans.
}Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been
given
}a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
}the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
}subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
}owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs
were
}needed, etc...
}
}I have owned a 88 Delta 88 Olds, 89 Ford Mustang 5.0, and a 95
Mercury
}Villager. Had very good experiences with all except the Olds. It
seemed
}like a nice car on the dealers lot. But it started to rattle after
only
}7 months. Had it in the shop no less than 5 times in the first year.
}After a while I came to the conclusion it wasn't built very well.
Only
}kept it about 18 months.
}
}Don't get me wrong, I know GM makes good cars. The one I got just
wasn't
}very good.
}
}Any input on the vans would be greatly appreciated.
}
}Thanks,
}
}Marty
}
}
Ken Martin
years. Lots of rattles, squeaks within 10,000 miles. Replaced it with a
GMC Jimmy, same thing. Just a lack of quality when it comes to body
integrity. Taking it back to the dealer - all they would say is "what do
you expect, it's a truck".
Good luck ... let the reliability figures speak for themselves.
Ken
phoneman
(Other than early fifties) but lately I have been hearing
voices when I pass the 250 Supercrew (Is that the right
name) when I pass the local dealer...LOL My wife gets
a GM discount.. hard to pass up, but I have a Blazer
now, '96, and it has had it's share of quality problems
with the body.. rattles and squeaks and door alignment,
etc..
Vern
Ken Martin wrote in message
Dell*Phinus
Hi Marty,
I've got a 98. Put 47,000 on it since we got it new.
MEchanical problems:
Rotors warped in the first month. Dealer replaced, no problems since.
(No it wasn't us or a tire shop's fault)
Differential input shaft seal leaks, one at 10,000, one at 35,000.
Dealer replaced. We'll see...
Driver's side electric window motor died, 45,000. I replaced it.
Mushy rear springs. Added Ride Rite air lifts. You gotta add air
lifts; they're Gggggrrrrrreeat!
Shocks leaked at 37,000. Replaced with Rancho 5000s. Too stiff; try
Bilsteins if you get one.
Comfort issues:
My wife hates the legroom.
We have mid row captains chairs. Makes tha back seat real hard to get
into/outof.
Mid windows open from the bottom, and are very noisy. So much so we
don't keep them open when driving.
Front windows are bad too, but ventshades helped.
Front seats are too high. I'm 5'7, and I think they are, so if you're
taller than that, check it out first. Visors interfere with driving if
straight down.
Console drink holders are a waste of space.
Accessory issues:
You can't get any. It isn't a truck, and it isn't a minivan. Everyone
ignores it. Things like tube style running boards, front receiver, dash
drinkholder/tray, other stuff I can't remember right now. But check it
out first if there's stuff you want.
Towing capability:
Ohh Yeaaa. It tows! We've got 3.73s. Goes where-ever you want, as
fast as you want. Towing in 3rd hits the petrol pretty hard, though.
If I had itto do over again, I think Id go for the 3.43, or put a size
bigger tire on the 3.73s. If we keep it, I may do the tires yet.
Added air lifts to bring the back end up when loaded/hitched. And added
an additional B&M tranny cooler, and added a B&M electronic shift kit
(These work really well, less than 50 bucks and a two wire hookup).
Other stuff:
Middle seats not coming out was a disappointment. Tons of room behind
the seat, and more than you'll believe with the back seat out.
We had an Aerostar before this. Much more comfortable, but not near the
power.
--
Dell*Phinus
* *
*
*
Jim and Linda King
>owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs were
>needed, etc...
>Thanks,
>
>Marty
Hi Marty,
We had a 94 Astro extended length van, that we bought used at about 60,000
miles. We kept it until this past spring, and at that time, there were about
110,000 miles on it.
We never had any unusual mechanical problems with it, just did the usual
maintenance. The only thing we really didn't like about it was the
handling/feel of the vehicle. Hard to explain, but on any type of curves or
bumpy roads, you really felt like you had to hang on! Also-the steering always
felt kind of loose; even after replacing front end parts. I've heard from
others here that the Astro is not known for good front end handling.
Basically we were happy with it, and traded it to have a more substantial tow
vehicle with a longer wheelbase for our larger-than-average popup.
Linda (I'd rather be camping)
Fleetville, PA
'93 Chevy Suburban
'99 Coleman Bayside
Kate H.
spent over 12 hours at a time in this car. Sure, I'd like more room, who
wouldn't?
We have good cup holders in the front, plus a glove box. There are LARGE map
pockets in the doors--both are large enough for MANY maps and atlases, plus an
Exit Authority (size of a meduim phone book) and the September issue of Vogue!
There are also map pockets on the back seats, plus compartments for each of the
rear seats, and each has a decent cupholder. The middle row has a round
cupholder and one squarish compartment, might hold a juice box. There is also
an open bin. These features were similar to the Grand Caravan we had--but I
would never want to try to tow with a minivan again.
Also by the passenger side is another pocket on the engine cover in which I
used to place our FRS radios before they were stolen. There are also two power
points there.
In the WAAY back, as my kids call it, I have a double-cargo net which can hang
just inside the hemi-barn doors (the window lifts up and the bottom half are
barn doors. I love that feature). There is a compartment on the left in which
I keep Rain-X next to another power point, and the larger jack compartment on
the right in which I also stow flares.
There are headrests in the six outside seats, something the Caravans didn't
have when we got ours in 1994.
There is a LOT of room under the two rear bench seats for storing things.
Now, I don't like the way the thing looks, but as with people, you don't seem
to notice the outside if you love what's inside!
And, we did have to have the rear lock replaced. This was done under
warrantee. I like that I can unlock all the doors with this back lock.
What else. . . I didn't notice wind noise becuase I never have my windows open
while riding.
I like the 25-gal gasoline tank too. I also like that I ride higher than my
husband's F150. Braking is good, so far. We have about 34,000 miles on the
vehicle & I guess I can say nothing major has gone wrong.
I don't like the "inside" running board by the sliding door--I'd much rather
have the floor space for a cooler like I did in the Caravan, and have running
boards put on the outside the vehicle.
BTW, you can get plenty of options on these vans--just about any you can get on
a minivan. There had been one loaded Safari on the lot with all the bells and
whistles.
I like also that I have guages rather than idiot lights, but wish I had a
tachometer. I like the power windows--so far, so good. I'd always been wary
of them.
I guess that's it. I really wanted to seat eight. We have four children and
it gives them each plenty of room, plus room for the dog.
One more thing--both seats slide up and back, which has come in handy.
I would have liked to have the ability to open the rear side windows though.
OK, I guess I've said enough! I know the thing is ugly, but the newer ones
look a little better than the older ones with the sloping grille. And it
doesn't look as ugly as trying to tow a 2,000 popup with the Grand Caravan's
3.8 liter engine FEELS! Towing is not a big white-knuckle experience anymore,
especially with the sway bar.
meldx
mine as 3 years today....1998Astro, had basic maintenance on it, some parts where
changed under garanty: Radio (AM was not receiving good), had a leak in a front
suspension, and had a recall on ignition (I think it was too close to another
part..) that's it....
I replace the factory tires (P rated) with Michelin LT rated after 32000KM.
Rides better with these.
leg room, could be more but we can live with it....
like the fact that both rear seats can move frontward and backward (BTW, we always
remove the last seat in summer for camping, and are able to put our 5 bikes in
there...(2 adults/3kids)
My only complain is that the 2 rear doors are not supported enough, if it's a bit
windy, they'll close by themselves just with the wind... or hit my back if I'm
looking for something.
Just a shame that they are suppose to stop manufacturing them in 2002 or 01... I
would like to have one with the new Vortex6000....
I might have to go for a Yukon or Sub when I decide to change
Mel
meldx
with that....
better to hear a few squeaks compare to blowing a transmission or... riding on
Firestones...
Mel
Ken Martin wrote:
> I finally gave up on GM vehicles ... had a Chevy Blazer for a couple of
> years. Lots of rattles, squeaks within 10,000 miles. Replaced it with a
> GMC Jimmy, same thing. Just a lack of quality when it comes to body
> integrity. Taking it back to the dealer - all they would say is "what do
> you expect, it's a truck".
>
> Good luck ... let the reliability figures speak for themselves.
>
> Ken
>
> mpea...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi all. I currently have a Mercury Villager and a Jayco 12UDK popup and
> > am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
> > newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize vans.
> > Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been given
> > a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
> > the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
> > subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
> > owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs were
> > needed, etc...
> >
meldx
do you still have squeaks... or other problems with???
MtnGrmetNY
>barn doors.
This type of door was what we preferred also over the barn doors and they are
great. With the regular barn doors you won't get the rear wiper or defogger.
From what I've heard this will be the last year they are making the dutch door
style, so if you are interested in this door style, thought I should mention
it. You can double check on this with your dealer. I'd also like to comment
to check with the new models because some of the comments being made don't
apply to the new ones. I have a 2000 and so far really like it.
Debbie
Mark
tired of towing with a sagging rear ;-)
MtnGrmetNY
>You can't get any. It isn't a truck, and it isn't a minivan. Everyone
>ignores it. Things like tube style running boards, front receiver, dash
> drinkholder/tray, other stuff I can't remember right now. But check it
>out first if there's stuff you want.
This simply is not the case. These vans are also available as conversion vans
with all sorts of options... at a cost, of course. But, you can order separate
running boards, tv unit, etc. We've ordered the nice running boards that come
with the converted vans, but they haven't come in yet. We'll also be buying
the TV/VCP unit as a center console for the kids. They sell these at many
places, including Costco. They also now have a separate rear stereo for kids
w/headphones, standard with the LX model...which is quite pricey. There are
many options to add to the basic van. The new ones also have cupholders in the
front. If you get one I highly recommend getting the rear A/C also.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
>(These work really well, less than 50 bucks and a two wire hookup).
I'm not sure what that is, but thought I'd also mention with the 2000 models
they now have a tow/haul switch on the steering column to use when towing to
help the transmission.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
>bumpy roads, you really felt like you had to hang on!
Our friend with a Safari found this also so he had some sort of sway bar (not
sure if that's what he called it) installed on the van (not for towing,
something else) and said it's much better now. We might look into that also
If you take the curves fast, you do feel it for sure.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
found a site with so many testimonies from Astro owners that claimed these vans
just don't 'quit'. They had unbelievable mileage on them. Evidently routine
oil changes will keep them running a very long time. Sorry I couldn't find the
link, maybe if you did a search.
Debbie
sixpopuppers
We are on our 2nd Astro. Our first was an '88 purchased used in 1991.
Our 88 was going strong when we sold it last year -- we sold it because
the a/c compressor died and we just didn't want to go to the big
expense of replacing it, so we sold it as is. We know the people who
now own it and it has traveled many more miles and is doing fine.
When we were shopping for another vehicle, I had decided not to get
another Astro. Not that I didn't like ours, I just wanted something
different. At the time, we didn't have our popup and weren't into the
towing issues. We looked at ALL the minis out there and I mean ALL of
them - shopped for months.
One day spotted several Astros on a dealer's lot and although I stayed
away from them, my husband wandered over to check out the silver one
and called me over -- that did it, we were sold. For bettter money
than the Caravans/Voyagers/Ventures, etc., we got the 98 Astro, totally
loaded, including overhead console with flip-down tv. Who said you
can't get any options on Astros???
It has been a fabulous car for us and yes, we did install the airlift
shocks also.
Since we have gotten into popup camping, every day I thank my lucky
stars that we did fall in love with this Astro or we definitely
wouldn't have been in the market for a popup.
Kris
--
98 Astro
97 Starcraft Starlounge
my webpage: http://www.homestead.com/sixpoppers/
rlh...@my-deja.com
kj...@attglobal.net wrote:
> I finally gave up on GM vehicles ... had a Chevy Blazer for a couple
of
> years. Lots of rattles, squeaks within 10,000 miles. Replaced it with
a
> GMC Jimmy, same thing. Just a lack of quality when it comes to body
> integrity. Taking it back to the dealer - all they would say is "what
do
> you expect, it's a truck".
>
> Good luck ... let the reliability figures speak for themselves.
>
> Ken
Yea Ken. Unfortunatly GM has been notorious for there interior
quality problems (ie. squeek & rattle). The S-10's both pick-up and
blazers were the worst of the bunch. And the M/L(astro/safari) wern't
far behind. They do come with one heck of a powertrain. The 4.3L mated
to the 4L60E trans is a good combo. It is too bad that they won't be
continuing them past the 2003(revised figure)MY.
Rob H
Dell*Phinus
(200-300?). Took a couple/three hours to put in; drill four holes
each side. Mounted the air valves on the passenger side vertical pillar
by the back door, just above the storage tray. Takes about 18 lbs when
we're loaded and hitched to get level again. Two stokes on a bicycle
pump.
Thunderchicken just did the same thing/different brand.
Mark J Strawcutter
>am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
>newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize vans.
>Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been given
>a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
>the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
>subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
>owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs were
>needed, etc...
The first thing you need to do is burn your Consumer Reports.
My experience is that reliability is no better and no worse than my
previous Dodge Caravan. Towing capability infinitely better.
It's not a minivan. It's a truck. If you're expecting something that
rides like a car you'll be disappointed.
Mark J Strawcutter
Indiana PA
'97 Coleman Key West
Mark J Strawcutter
>>a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average),
>
>research before purchasing and never saw anything that bad.
No need to quote the source since _everyone_ knows the only accurate,
unbiased source of reliability figures is Consumer Reports :-)
mounta...@mindspring.invalid
>I know the thing is ugly, but the newer ones
>look a little better than the older ones with the sloping grille.
Hi, Kate -
I must be weird, but I love the looks of the Safari. I've hated all the
minivans since day one, especially when they started getting more
rounded with very sloped front ends - they remind me of a suppository,
LOL! I'm temporarily driving a rental 2001 Grand Caravan and I hate it,
too. Can't wait to get another Safari! FWIW :-)
--
Margo in Florida
1984 Coleman Cape Cod, totalled 1992 GMC Safari :-(
mpea...@my-deja.com
that consumer reports is the final word on vehicles. One thing I noticed
about consumer reports is that one bad year can greatly affect the
ratings. For instance, the Winstar was rated even lower(128% worse than
average) in reliability than the Astro/Safaris. The Winstar's are very
good vans now as far as I know from friends that have them, but the 95
was a very bad year with lots of problems(also from friends that had
them). If you just went by the ratings, you wouldn't buy a Winstar, thus
the reason for this post. Thanks for the input.
Marty
In article <t152rsp...@corp.supernews.com>,
mjs...@grove.iup.edu wrote:
> >Hi all. I currently have a Mercury Villager and a Jayco 12UDK popup
and
> >am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
> >newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize
vans.
> >Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been
given
> >a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
> >the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
> >subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
> >owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs
were
> >needed, etc...
>
> The first thing you need to do is burn your Consumer Reports.
>
> My experience is that reliability is no better and no worse than my
> previous Dodge Caravan. Towing capability infinitely better.
>
> It's not a minivan. It's a truck. If you're expecting something that
> rides like a car you'll be disappointed.
>
> Mark J Strawcutter
> Indiana PA
> '97 Coleman Key West
>
Dell*Phinus
NA. Front mount receivers,NA. NPI rubber floor mats, NA. Dash mount
drink holder/junk tray, NA. Or, at least I haven't been able to locate
them; if you know of a source, I'd LOVE to know who/where!
Conversion vans can be outfitted with a lot of stuff, and fiberglas
running boards, but that isn't what I was talking about. Also, if
you're thinking of going the conversion route, check out the storage
space behind the seat, they move everything aft.
I stand by my recommendation: if there's something you really want on
the van, make sure it's available before you buy.
Ciao,
Jim Redelfs
> No need to quote the source since _everyone_ knows the only accurate,
> unbiased source of reliability figures is Consumer Reports :-)
Yeah, as long as you are a Liberal and drive a Japanese company vehicle.
After MANY years, I RE-subscribed to CR for a year. The rag hasn't
changed and I just received my last issue. Again, I won't be renewing.
:)
JR
10mmFan
>
>Hi all. I currently have a Mercury Villager and a Jayco 12UDK popup and
>am looking to get a beefyer tow vehicle. I have been reading this
>newsgroup and am very interested in the Astro/Safari mini/midsize vans.
>Everything sounds good about these vans except that they have been given
>a very poor reliability rating(70% worse than average), the worst in
>the minivan category. I realize that van ratings are somewhat
>subjective. I would love to hear from current and past Astro/Safari
>owners about there experiences with these vans, how often repairs were
>needed, etc...
>
>Villager. Had very good experiences with all except the Olds. It seemed
>like a nice car on the dealers lot. But it started to rattle after only
>7 months. Had it in the shop no less than 5 times in the first year.
>After a while I came to the conclusion it wasn't built very well. Only
>kept it about 18 months.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I know GM makes good cars. The one I got just wasn't
>very good.
>
>Any input on the vans would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Marty
>
>
>Before you buy.
Just thought I'd chime in with another vote (no recounts allowed) for the Astro.
We are on our second Astro ('96 AWD, LT model) and enjoy it very much. Our
first one, an '87 2WD w/ tow package was a workhorse. Pulled a tent trailer, a
utility trailer packed with scout gear, used it as a moving van several times, all
without a problem. Problems with the '87 involved replacing the alternator at
90k, water pump at 110k, new brake pads, rotors, calipers at 78k, oil pressure
sender at 85k (it was leaking). No problem with engine and tranny/powertrain.
Sold it last year at 125k and it was still in excellent condition, inside and out.
Should have sold the Bronco and kept the Astro. Bought the '96 Astro last year
with 58k, now at 69k with just a couple of oil changes in between. Like what
Dell*P recommends, I am planning to put some Ride-rites this winter to correct
the mushy rear end. Like what other people have said about the power train, the
4.3 ( 350 V8 minus 2 cyls) coupled with the 4L60E tranny makes for a very good
combination. This combo is commonly found in Chevy's/GMC's full-size truck
line-up. We pretty much have all the options available minus the leather seats
and we think we are pretty spoiled (Dutch doors, roof rack, alloys, front and rear
AC/heat, rear wiper, rear defroster, reclining captain's chairs on outside seating
(6 in all), and lots of room in the back). We looked at an Expedition and decided
that with the 3rd seat in the back, there is hardly any room for anything but two
or three medium-sized suitcases.
--
George S
10mmFan
1999 Starcraft Galaxy
1996 Chevy Astro AWD (3.73 axle)
1982 Ford Bronco 4WD (3.50 axle)
1972 BellBoy 18' Runabout (Soft Top)
Brian A.
reliability ratings and skepticism regarding their lack of bias. I
don't particularly like the magazine, myself, but their reliability
ratings are based on ownership experience, which admittedly is
subjective. But a large sample size reduces this subjectivity.
Additionally, most people expect the same reliability from all their
vehicles. So, for example, Astro owners are no more biased against
their vehicle than Accord owners are biased favorably toward their
vehicle. Readers in this newsgroup may have had excellent personal
reliability with their Astro (which is great, I'm not debating that
point), but anecdotal evidence of good reliability cannot be assumed
for all sold of that model. As far as I'm concerned, Consumer Reports
is an unbiased source of information available for the consumer,
whether one agrees with their findings or not. How can one claim that a
magazine that accepts no advertisements has an alterior motive? I've
had a hard time looking at the American vs. Japanese reliability issue
objectively, but have come to grips with the fact that they simply have
higher quality control and more advanced engineering in their vehicles
in general than American vehicles, even though I don't own one. Now,
have I set myself up for some serious flaming or what?!
--
Brian A.
1996 Dodge Intrepid ES
1999 Tracker 12SC
eflo...@my-deja.com
mpea...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Consumer Reports.
>
>
http://www.consumerreports.org/Categories/CarsTrucks/Reports/0004rel0.h
t
> m
(snort!)
Consumers reports has a long and storied history of leaning toward the
import cars and away from American made. Basing ANY kind of purchanse
therefore, on that publication is a shakey proposition at best.
/E
eflo...@my-deja.com
I'm
> tired of towing with a sagging rear ;-)
You, or the truck?
(GRIN! Sorry, I couldn't resist the open line....LOL! )
Seriously, how's the ride after adding the air, I wonder?
(Which would affect MY rear, after a few hundred miles...)
/E
Dell*Phinus
eflo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7k341tsihleesdqeg...@4ax.com>,
> Mark <mac...@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote:
> I'm
> > tired of towing with a sagging rear ;-)
>
>
> (GRIN! Sorry, I couldn't resist the open line....LOL! )
>
> Seriously, how's the ride after adding the air, I wonder?
> (Which would affect MY rear, after a few hundred miles...)
>
> /E
>
When unloaded/without air, same as stock/unloaded.
When unloaded, with air, STIFF, REAL STIFF :-).
MtnGrmetNY
>NA. Front mount receivers,NA. NPI rubber floor mats, NA. Dash mount
>drink holder/junk tray, NA. Or, at least I haven't been able to locate
>them; if you know of a source, I'd LOVE to know who/where!
>
the ones available are real nice. I have rubber floor mats, not sure what you
mean by NPI. There are drink holders in the front by the engine compartment as
well as a 'junk' tray under the passenger seat and a bin and small open
compartment by the engine area also. There's also the electronic console that
shows the direction you're travelling as well as the temperature, and can track
gas used and how much mileage you're getting, and how much mileage you can go
with the remaining gas you have. I guess the point I was trying to make is
there are many options and things available, might not be exactly the same on
the regular mini vans, but these are not regular mini vans.
Debbie
Dell*Phinus
Debbie,
Sorry about the mis-spelling! You'd think I'd be more careful about
that since our daughter's is spelled Meagan; not Megan, Meghan, etc.
Is there a convention on Debbie vs Debby? Is one short for Deborah and
one's not short for anything?
Tube type running boards/nerf boards are typically a single large
diameter steel or stainless steel tube, instead of a flat wide running
board. Some people prefer the look, some prefer them because they don't
hold mud/dirt/water/snow, etc on top, and don't
splinter/delaminate/fold-up when you hit a rock or curb. If you didn't
know what they are, how could you tell me they're available? ;-)
The drink holder/tray I'm refering to is one that mounts ON TOP OF the
DASH, not the console. It has holes big enough, and is deep enough to
hold a large mug or glass without tipping when you corner. The stock
holders on the console are just about worthless IMO for anything other
than a soda can. These trays are typically available for full size vans
and were for the Ford Aerostar minivans.
NPI (Nifty Products Inc) floor mats are a thick, high lipped mat that
you can dump a couple quarts of slush into and it won't run off/out all
over your carpet. They are available for just about every van/truck/SUV
made, but not the Safari/Astro. Very common/popular amongst
sportsmen/outdoor enthusiatists (well heeled ones, anyway :-) )
The point I was making was that many of the accessories normally
available to SUV/truck owners are not made for us. It's frustrating if
you're looking to beef up/trick out the thing.
phoneman
through your hands ! Just think, you would have cornered
the market.. Maybe it's still not too late ! 8^)#
Vern
Dell*Phinus wrote in message <
Dell*Phinus
they'd talk custom) up with a custom window manufacturer, to explore
making drop in replacement windows for the fixed and tipouts. Coulnd't
find enough folks interested to offset the cost. I wanted to have the
conversion van style fixed upper/sliding lower, or even the Aerostar
style full size sliding, that you could install in a stock astro without
having to cut metal.
Oh well...
MtnGrmetNY
>that since our daughter's is spelled Meagan; not Megan, Meghan, etc.
>Is there a convention on Debbie vs Debby? Is one short for Deborah and
>one's not short for anything?
It's ok! I actually hate Debbie, spelled either way, but after being called it
for so long was hard to get people to call me by my more adult sounding name,
Debra. Somehow DebbY seems worse for me. Meagan is a great name, and if
shortened to Meg, still nice. Have never seen it spelled that way.... it's
nice.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
>know what they are, how could you tell me they're available? ;-)
>
Sorry, meant running boards in general and wasn't sure if they were the same
thing or not. I think I know what you mean now though.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
>you can dump a couple quarts of slush into and it won't run off/out all
>over your carpet.
Wow, never seen them. Are they available thru an auto supply shop? They'd be
great in the back with my kids.
Debbie
MtnGrmetNY
>available to SUV/truck owners are not made for us. It's frustrating if
>you're looking to beef up/trick out the thing.
You see, this is why I can't figure why they'll stop making these when they can
certainly improve on them more and keep selling them as an alternative for the
SUV's/trucks. A few people joked to me that it was because they lasted too
long. For people that prefer this over an SUV, they'd continue to be a huge
seller. To me, these seem better suited for family travel (just my opinion) so
why take themselves out of that market. The Venture doesn't come close. Maybe
because the SUV's are getting more and more popular.
Debbie
Dell*Phinus
Yea, JC Whitney or Performance Products both carry them. But I thought
you had an Astro? They don't make them for us!
Brian A.
If you guys want them to keep building the Astro, then let your voices
be heard to GM! It is not unprecedented for manufacturers to extend the
life of vehicles, so long as they're profitable. It happened in the
late 80s when Ford was going to axe the Mustang with the Probe (I
happened to own an '89 Probe GT, which was an excellent car).
Production of the Mustang only continued because of public outcry. It
is also likely to happen with the Jeep Cherokee. The Cherokee was
expected to be replaced with a new version, but since the old one is so
profitable and their sales continue to grow every year, they may sell
the old and new ones side-by-side. GM made a big mistake by
discontinuing the Caprice. The '94-'96 Impapala SS (a souped-up
Caprice) is already a classic, commanding higher used prices than they
did new. Now Ford has a monopoly on the police fleet vehicles. Convince
GM they are making a mistake by discontinuing the Astro if you really
want to see it live (or better yet, buy one)!!
--
Brian A.
1996 Dodge Intrepid ES
1999 Tracker 12SC
Mark
would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I have
begged them for this for years. I am currently selling my Custom Hightop
Astro, sadly, and I am having to go with a SUV to get the towing I need and
the absolute necessity of having the second rear door in order to
efficiently deal with having to deal with two small children.
I think that the Astro is a superior vehicle to a mini-van, especially for
towing a pop-up long distances. However, Chevy's lack of response to update
the model when the very units they are trying to compete against (Caravan,
and the like) are adding things like the second sliding door and powered at
that. Chevy has definitely missed the boat on this one. As they do most of
the time. Dodge seems to be the inovator here of late. Second sliding door
power rear hatch, third door on the club cab pickups, staring the American
Retro fad that is currently going on. And while they were beat to the
market by Nissan Frontier quad cab pickup, they have had better execution.
I am 6' tall and absolutely can not sit in the rear of the Nissan with a
tall adult driving. The Dodge Dakota Quad Cab on the other had, can have
the front seat slid all the way back and the driver in a comfortable
position, and I still have about an inch or so between the back of the front
seat and my knees.
But I digress
Mark -
_________________________
"Brian A." <abb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8uvs6l$kgo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Tony P
> Marty
> I drove an 85 Astro for eleven yrs.It was the best car i have ever
owned.I replaced the engine at 160,000 because i didn't change the oil
very reg.It still had the orginal starter,alt,transmission and
rearend.The only thing i had to replace on the front end was the idler
arms.
>
--
Anthony&Margie Powell
00 LT Blazer
95 Rockwood 2280
Sherman,Tx.
wizard4440
anyone except its subscribers. No advertising, no bias. Our government could
learn a lesson from these guys. Anyone who has had the pleasure of owning a
trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to know that
once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable service.
I am in no way saying that if one takes good care of ANY vehicle that it
lends to it's longevity. I am comparing as a generalization. We have owned 3
Camry's, 1 Tercel 4-wheel drive wagon, and my work truck is a '95 T-100.
It's incredible how much these vehicles will take and just keep going.
--
~Jim~
I make no secret that I would rather lie on
a sofa than sweep beneath it. But you have
to be efficient if you're going to be lazy.
<eflo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uunah$lcr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8uscp9$pcq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mpea...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Consumer Reports.
> >
> >
> http://www.consumerreports.org/Categories/CarsTrucks/Reports/0004rel0.h
> t
> > m
>
>
> (snort!)
>
> Consumers reports has a long and storied history of leaning toward the
> import cars and away from American made. Basing ANY kind of purchanse
> therefore, on that publication is a shakey proposition at best.
>
> /E
>
>
MELDX
> certainly improve on them more and keep selling them as an alternative for the
> SUV's/trucks.
>
Suburban,Jimmy...etc. at 10K$ to 20K$ more for a unit.....(that's the difference
here in Quebec, Canada) you can buy an Astro starting at about 26K$ but the jimmys
and others are 34K$.... up to 53K$ for a Yukon
I guess we all need to be lotery winners in a few years if we want to afford these
expensive machines...
Mel
phoneman
Black Cargo Liner
$69.95
Chevrolet Astro (extended length/behind 3rd seat), 1990 thru current
But as you can see.. looks like just the rear extension.. Beats nothing though.
These mats are Weather Tech.. same deep construction you are talking
about. They may have front mats also.. but website is under construction,
so you have to ask..
URL: www.mats.com
Vern
MtnGrmetNY wrote in message
mpea...@my-deja.com
which way we will go in our new tow vehicle. We are considering the
Astro/Safari or maybe a fullsize van. The wife doesn't want an SUV. I
have had to catch my breath at times when looking at the prices of new
vehicles. There is a 99 E150 Econoline Van on the dealers lot down the
street from my work. Pretty much loaded with low miles. According to
the fuel economy website the mileage is 15 city, 20 highway, only a
little worse than the Astro. We will see what the dealer will do on
price.
Thanks again,
Marty
In article <8us5kd$ira$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
MtnGrmetNY
>you had an Astro? They don't make them for us!
>
Oh, thought maybe there was a generic, after market type that I could get not
specific for the Astro. They did sound great. Oh well.
Debbie
Dell*Phinus
mtngr...@aol.com (MtnGrmetNY) wrote:
> >Yea, JC Whitney or Performance Products both carry them. But I
thought
> >you had an Astro? They don't make them for us!
> >
>
get not
> specific for the Astro. They did sound great. Oh well.
> Debbie
>
I rest my case.
MtnGrmetNY
>would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I have
>begged them for this for years.
You know have to say this. At first that bothered me alot since all the others
had the second slider. But when I see the way my boys often slide open the
door and hop out, I'm glad I don't have a door on the other side. If I did,
the one sitting on the left side probably wouldn't wait for the other and jump
out on the left side. I often park on a very busy road here with traffic
whizzing by on the left, so I am glad I don't have this. If I had the left
door, I'd only teach them to use only the right door, so what would the sense
be to that.
Debbie
MELDX
3) to have a reclining back. Dodge has this and it's much usefull when the
children are asleep to give the a few degrees more to sleep better and not having
their heads falling in front of them.....
Mel
MtnGrmetNY wrote:
> > It's survival
> >would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I have
> >begged them for this for years.
>
Jim Redelfs
<wizar...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > Consumers reports has a long and storied history of leaning toward the
> > import cars and away from American made. Basing ANY kind of purchanse
> > therefore, on that publication is a shakey proposition at best.
> Maybe because it's true? Jeez...Consumer Reports accepts no money from
> anyone except its subscribers. No advertising, no bias.
Just that simple, eh? Not quite.
> Our government could learn a lesson from these guys.
Consumers Union *IS* part of our government, if I recall correctly.
There's certainly no social/political bias there, fer sure.
> Anyone who has had the pleasure of owning a
> trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to know that
> once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable service.
> I am in no way saying that if one takes good care of ANY vehicle that it
> lends to it's longevity. I am comparing as a generalization. We have owned 3
> Camry's, 1 Tercel 4-wheel drive wagon, and my work truck is a '95 T-100.
> It's incredible how much these vehicles will take and just keep going.
Yeah? Tell that to my '82 Chevy wagon. I traded it off with >164k miles
(many trailering). It never did burn oil. We went on a quest for VACUUM
and was told the camshaft lobes were wearing down. They just don't build
'em like they used to. Thank, God. They (domestic nameplated cars) are
INFINITELY better now than they were back then. Of course, you wouldn't
know it from reading only Consumer Reports.
BTW - Just read a few of their reviews and commentary and tell me they
AREN'T a liberal-biased organization. Car reviews include not only trunk
space but whether or not a "folded wheelchair" will fit. Before I am
branded as insensitive to those that are <ahem> Differently Abled<tm>,
remember that yours and my tax dollars go, in part, to subsidize the
purchase of specially-equipped vehicles for Mobility Impaired<tm>
persons. Of course, these are all Good Things<tm> so that's OK.
<sigh>
JR
Jim Redelfs
<dellp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I'm tired of towing with a sagging rear ;-)
> > You, or the truck?
> When loaded/with air...
I always RIDE better when loaded.
Hehehehehe!
:)
JR
George & Theresa Odom
our expectations. Use to put 100K on a car overhaul it and run it
another 100K. Now the motor may last 150K but it isn't worth rebuilding
because the bodys are falling apart. If anything goes wrong you need a
computer to tell you what it is. Give me simplicty! Oh well just my 1/2
cent
--
George
phoneman
Vern
Jim Redelfs wrote in message ...
Austin
The engine had to be replaced at 6000 miles! We got our 2000 astro in
late April, and soon found it drinking oil. Several trips to the
dealer later, we got the bad news. It was burning oil through two
cylinders, and the only way to fix it was to replace the engine (under
warranty).
We were not amused.
After the new engine arrived, it took eleven days to install. The
rental car was covered under warranty, but wouldn't have towed a Radio
Flyer. We got it back five days before leaving for a trip in the
White Mountains. Needless to say, the new engine brake-in was
somewhat abbreviated.
I don't think our experience is typical, however. Relatives (one at a
tranny shop and another at a Chevy dealer) both told us the Astro was
what we wanted. Both said they never need drive train work. The one
at the dealership said not to get the AWD. They don't break often,
but they are very difficult (and expensive) to work on. Since the
engine is replaced by dropping it from the bottom, we're glad we
didn't get the AWD!
Having worked in QA, I understand infant mortality. I just wish it
hadn't happened to us.
If we hadn't been concerned about the trip, we would have insisted on
a new vehicle.
We have had absolutely no trouble since then, and would certanly buy
another Astro, despite the appalling lack of foot room.
Austin
--
Coopers:
'60 Husband '6? Wife
'83 Daughter '85 Daughter '90 Son
'00 Astro '00 Bayside email: remove X's to reply
Brian A.
>
> > > Consumers reports has a long and storied history of leaning
toward the
> > > import cars and away from American made. Basing ANY kind of
purchanse
> > > therefore, on that publication is a shakey proposition at best.
>
> > Maybe because it's true? Jeez...Consumer Reports accepts no money
from
> > anyone except its subscribers. No advertising, no bias.
>
> Just that simple, eh? Not quite.
>
> > Our government could learn a lesson from these guys.
>
> Consumers Union *IS* part of our government, if I recall correctly.
> There's certainly no social/political bias there, fer sure.
Consumer Reports is as unbiased as magazines get. But they're not the
only ones to espouse the virtues of Japanese cars. Take Car and Driver,
for example. They judge only new cars based on performance, yet you
will find 75-80% of the cars on their "top ten list" are foreign. If a
car performs well, they say so. If not, they say that too. I would
definitely not call the car magazines (especially Car and Driver)
liberal! The same argument can be made for other automotive magazines.
>
> > Anyone who has had the pleasure of owning a
> > trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to
know that
> > once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable
service.
> > I am in no way saying that if one takes good care of ANY vehicle
that it
> > lends to it's longevity. I am comparing as a generalization. We
have owned 3
> > Camry's, 1 Tercel 4-wheel drive wagon, and my work truck is a '95 T-
100.
> > It's incredible how much these vehicles will take and just keep
going.
>
> Yeah? Tell that to my '82 Chevy wagon. I traded it off with >164k
miles
> (many trailering). It never did burn oil. We went on a quest for
VACUUM
> and was told the camshaft lobes were wearing down. They just don't
build
> 'em like they used to. Thank, God. They (domestic nameplated cars)
are
> INFINITELY better now than they were back then. Of course, you
wouldn't
> know it from reading only Consumer Reports.
I agree that American cars are infinitely better now than in the past.
However, they have not kept up with the pace the Japanese are setting.
The bar has been raised and American vehicles generally don't stack up
comparatively speaking. This is why you still see low reliability
ratings, which I think is justified. You had to have been aware of this
because the bar for performance ratings has been raised also. For
example, a mid-sized car in the mid 80s that could do zero to 60 in 11
seconds would have received "better than average." Today, it would
likely only receive and "average" because vehicle class performance has
continually improved.
>
> BTW - Just read a few of their reviews and commentary and tell me they
> AREN'T a liberal-biased organization. Car reviews include not only
trunk
> space but whether or not a "folded wheelchair" will fit. >
Why is it liberal to include as much information as possible. I don't
know that space in a trunk for a folded wheelchair is a politically
divisive issue. Seems to me that an equal number of liberals and
conservatives need space in their trunk for a wheelchair.
Before I am
> branded as insensitive to those that are <ahem> Differently Abled<tm>,
> remember that yours and my tax dollars go, in part, to subsidize the
> purchase of specially-equipped vehicles for Mobility Impaired<tm>
> persons. Of course, these are all Good Things<tm> so that's OK.
No comment, only that it doesn't apply to your criticism of Consumer
Reports.
--
Brian A.
1996 Dodge Intrepid ES
1999 Tracker 12SC
Mark J Strawcutter
>3) to have a reclining back. Dodge has this and it's much usefull when the
>children are asleep to give the a few degrees more to sleep better and not having
>their heads falling in front of them.....
My Astro does this. I think it requires the LT trim level.
Mark J Strawcutter
Indiana PA
'97 Coleman Key West
'97 Astro AWD
Brian A.
<4C183B823AC30D17.17C09610...@lp.airnews.net>,
without an overhaul, and their bodies hold up very well. You must be
referring to American cars. Simplicity would be nice, but I'll take a
complex reliable car that doesn't need repairs over a simple to fix but
unreliable car anyday. I happen to own a complex unreliable car!
MtnGrmetNY
>--
LOL, ok I sit corrected. (well partially anyway - partially corrected that
is, not partially sitting) ; )
wizard4440
> BTW - Just read a few of their reviews and commentary and tell me they
> AREN'T a liberal-biased organization. Car reviews include not only trunk
> branded as insensitive to those that are <ahem> Differently Abled<tm>,
> remember that yours and my tax dollars go, in part, to subsidize the
> purchase of specially-equipped vehicles for Mobility Impaired<tm>
> persons. Of course, these are all Good Things<tm> so that's OK.
It's all a liberal conspiracy Jim. They ARE all out to get you. No right
handed conservative would ever lead you astray. As far as the wheel chair
comment, why would you mention it unless you felt that it wasn't a good idea
for a handicapped person / family to know if one would fit? I took care of
my dying father for over two years until his demise and yes approximately
6-8 months of his life was wheel chair bound when it was anything more than
around the house. I wouldn't expect for someone who hasn't gone through this
kind of thing to understand. Heck, 25 years ago I probably would have never
thought of it either.
--
~Jim~
I make no secret that I would rather lie on
a sofa than sweep beneath it. But you have
to be efficient if you're going to be lazy.
"Jim Redelfs" <jim.r...@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-16...@216-40-2-72.novia.net...
> In article <#rBLYe5TAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09>, "wizard4440"
> <wizar...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Consumers reports has a long and storied history of leaning toward the
> > > import cars and away from American made. Basing ANY kind of purchanse
> > > therefore, on that publication is a shakey proposition at best.
>
> > Maybe because it's true? Jeez...Consumer Reports accepts no money from
> > anyone except its subscribers. No advertising, no bias.
>
> Just that simple, eh? Not quite.
>
> > Our government could learn a lesson from these guys.
>
> Consumers Union *IS* part of our government, if I recall correctly.
> There's certainly no social/political bias there, fer sure.
>
> > Anyone who has had the pleasure of owning a
> > trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to know
that
> > once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable
service.
> > I am in no way saying that if one takes good care of ANY vehicle that it
> > lends to it's longevity. I am comparing as a generalization. We have
owned 3
> > Camry's, 1 Tercel 4-wheel drive wagon, and my work truck is a '95 T-100.
> > It's incredible how much these vehicles will take and just keep going.
>
> Yeah? Tell that to my '82 Chevy wagon. I traded it off with >164k miles
> (many trailering). It never did burn oil. We went on a quest for VACUUM
> and was told the camshaft lobes were wearing down. They just don't build
> 'em like they used to. Thank, God. They (domestic nameplated cars) are
> INFINITELY better now than they were back then. Of course, you wouldn't
> know it from reading only Consumer Reports.
>
> BTW - Just read a few of their reviews and commentary and tell me they
> AREN'T a liberal-biased organization. Car reviews include not only trunk
> space but whether or not a "folded wheelchair" will fit. Before I am
> branded as insensitive to those that are <ahem> Differently Abled<tm>,
> remember that yours and my tax dollars go, in part, to subsidize the
> purchase of specially-equipped vehicles for Mobility Impaired<tm>
> persons. Of course, these are all Good Things<tm> so that's OK.
>
> <sigh>
> JR
Mark
saftey latch that prevents the operation of the door from the inside. I
still say that the second slide would have gone a long way is saving the
vehicle. Just as another side point, are they really going to discontinue
it this time? I have heard this from them before.
Mark -
_____________________
"MtnGrmetNY" <mtngr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001116130205...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
> > It's survival
> >would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I have
> >begged them for this for years.
>
Mark
have a custom hightop and it has aftermarket capt. chairs in the center that
recline.
Mark -
________________________________
"MELDX" <me...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A143EEC...@sympatico.ca...
> Another neet option that should be considered is to have the rear seats
(those for
> 3) to have a reclining back. Dodge has this and it's much usefull when
the
> children are asleep to give the a few degrees more to sleep better and not
having
> their heads falling in front of them.....
>
> Mel
>
> MtnGrmetNY wrote:
>
> > > It's survival
> > >would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I
have
> > >begged them for this for years.
> >
Mark J Strawcutter
>saftey latch that prevents the operation of the door from the inside.
You were just a year too early :-) It's there in '96
mounta...@mindspring.invalid
I agree 100% with not wanting left-side sliding door on a van. I have
five kids and the fewer ways for them to escape, the better, LOL! Also
hubby said he thought it would weaken the structure of the van. Not
sure about that, but I'm glad my Safari doesn't have it.
Just to be fair, the 2001 Caravan I just rented had the left-side
sliding door and it did have a child lock on it. My 92 Safari's
right-side sliding door didn't, the 00 does.
This is just a personal preference, though. I can understand why it
would be handy for folks with all older children who will obey the
rules, or an infant/toddler who needs help getting into the car seat,
but I don't meet either of those situations right now (older siblings
buckle my 2-year-old in his car seat).
--
Margo in Florida
84 Coleman Cape Cod, 00 Safari :-) :-) :-)
totaled 92 Safari :-(
replace "invalid" with "com" to email
On 16 Nov 2000 18:02:05 GMT, mtngr...@aol.com (MtnGrmetNY) wrote:
>> It's survival
>>would depend on putting a driver side sliding door on the thing. I have
>>begged them for this for years.
>
MELDX
Mel
MELDX
Astro..... I guess in any type vehicule (car/truck/RV), even as best as
they built them, it could happen once in a while someone would have a
bad experience with a something that has a good rating.
in your case, maybe we can say that it's a happy endind, since no troubles
anymore!
Mel
MELDX
case of an accident... I might want to be able to open this door from the inside
if this is the only way out....
Mel
Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
> >The other thing that they have missing, at least on my 95 Astro is the child
> >saftey latch that prevents the operation of the door from the inside.
>
> You were just a year too early :-) It's there in '96
>
Mark J Strawcutter
>> My Astro does this. I think it requires the LT trim level.
Seats for 3. Back in '96 (don't think it's changed since then) the LS
trim level rear seats had monolithic seat backs with molded nonadjustable
head rests. The entire seat back on the middle seat would swing forward
to allow entry to the rear seat (Caravans et al handle this with a shorter
2-person middle seat, the Astro middle seat holds 3).
With LT trim level, the 2nd and 3rd seats have belts for 3. The outer
positions have shoulder belts. Headrests are adjustable. Seat back is
3 segments. Outboard positions have left/right armrests that swing down,
and that position's seatback reclines and/or folds forward. This allows
access to rear seat while someone is sitting in driver's side of middle
seat (they don't have to fold over along with the entire seatback as
in the LS :-)
Seatback for middle position folds down flat to form a "table" with cup
holders.
Hard to describe, but imagine captains chairs with the gap between them
filled in. Seemed to us to be best of both worlds - comfort of captains
chairs but ability to haul 8 if needed. Middle seating positions would
be uncomfortable for an adult on a long trip - plus lap belts only and no
shoulder harness.
mounta...@mindspring.invalid
>Are they Captain chairs or those seat for 3??
On the 2001, in the booklet I picked up at the dealer, SLE standard
equipment is "Removable 3-passenger bench" for center and rear seats.
SLT is "Removable 3-passenger bench with fold-down center console,
including dual cup holders." The pictures show arm rests for each side
position. Of course, it will only seat two when the center console is
folded down. SLT lists "Two reclining high-back bucket seats with dual
armrests and adjustable head restraints" as "available" for the center
seating position.
HTH,
MELDX
taught to look if the seat where reclining...well tuff luck for me... but it
would have probably cost me more....
thanks again
Mel
Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
> >Are they Captain chairs or those seat for 3??
> ...
> >> My Astro does this. I think it requires the LT trim level.
>
> Seats for 3. Back in '96 (don't think it's changed since then) the LS
> trim level rear seats had monolithic seat backs with molded nonadjustable
> head rests. The entire seat back on the middle seat would swing forward
> to allow entry to the rear seat (Caravans et al handle this with a shorter
> 2-person middle seat, the Astro middle seat holds 3).
>
> With LT trim level, the 2nd and 3rd seats have belts for 3. The outer
> positions have shoulder belts. Headrests are adjustable. Seat back is
> 3 segments. Outboard positions have left/right armrests that swing down,
> and that position's seatback reclines and/or folds forward. This allows
> access to rear seat while someone is sitting in driver's side of middle
> seat (they don't have to fold over along with the entire seatback as
> in the LS :-)
>
> Seatback for middle position folds down flat to form a "table" with cup
> holders.
>
> Hard to describe, but imagine captains chairs with the gap between them
> filled in. Seemed to us to be best of both worlds - comfort of captains
> chairs but ability to haul 8 if needed. Middle seating positions would
> be uncomfortable for an adult on a long trip - plus lap belts only and no
> shoulder harness.
>
Jim and Linda King
>
>I agree 100% with not wanting left-side sliding door on a van. I have
>five kids and the fewer ways for them to escape, the better, LOL!
We also never wanted a driver's side sliding door, as we very often park on the
street, and I don't want the kids getting out on the road side, anyway.
It was too funny when we got the Suburban, to watch the kids line up on the
curb side to get in the car--they'd forget there was now a back door on the
road side!
Linda (I'd rather be camping)
Fleetville, PA
'93 Chevy Suburban
'99 Coleman Bayside
eflo...@my-deja.com
"wizard4440" <wizar...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Maybe because it's true? Jeez...Consumer Reports accepts no money from
could
> learn a lesson from these guys.
You're forgetting about a personal bias on the part of the writers
testers and reporters. CU staffers live and work in the liberal
northeast... where if it's American made, it's considered crap right
off the bat. CU has /always/ been biased against American Made products
and their nonsense reviews of damn near any vehicle I have ever owned
has leaned away from the cars I've owned. Since in no case, I've had
none of the problems they cite, and all of my freinds who own rice
burners HAVE had problems....
Anyone who has had the pleasure of
owning a
> trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to know
that
> once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable
service.
Well, see, that's the other thing. I know of nobody like that.
If anything, they were less reliable, harder to find parts for, more
exensive to repair, particularly major repairs, and were not as good on
the road in general.
Solve this one;
Give me ONE instance where CU has top-rated an American made car, when
rice burners were included in the test.
Just one.
Can't do it?
Neither can I.
And here's the clincher as evidence of the bias of CU:
Does it even sound plauseable to you that NO American car ever made,
ever won in their class? None?
/E
Brian A.
eflo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <#rBLYe5TAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09>,
> "wizard4440" <wizar...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > Maybe because it's true? Jeez...Consumer Reports accepts no money
from
> > anyone except its subscribers. No advertising, no bias. Our
government
> could
> > learn a lesson from these guys.
>
> You're forgetting about a personal bias on the part of the writers
> testers and reporters. CU staffers live and work in the liberal
> northeast... where if it's American made, it's considered crap right
> off the bat. CU has /always/ been biased against American Made
products
> and their nonsense reviews of damn near any vehicle I have ever owned
> has leaned away from the cars I've owned. Since in no case, I've had
> none of the problems they cite, and all of my freinds who own rice
> burners HAVE had problems....
Well, if you're friends had problems, then surely everybody else has,
too. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything when we're talking about
across-the-board reliability. This is an argument that can only be
substantiated by statistics, and that's where you're fighting a losing
battle. Besides, many of those "rice-burners" are made right here in
the good 'ole U S of A.
>
> Anyone who has had the pleasure of
> owning a
> > trouble free "rice burner" can tell you, it is a great feeling to
know
> that
> > once you pay it off it will continue to give many years of reliable
> service.
>
> Well, see, that's the other thing. I know of nobody like that.
See my comment, above.
> If anything, they were less reliable, harder to find parts for, more
> exensive to repair, particularly major repairs, and were not as good
on
> the road in general.
>
I agree that they are more expensive, but they need repairs far less
often, in general.
> Solve this one;
>
> Give me ONE instance where CU has top-rated an American made car, when
> rice burners were included in the test.
I believe the 1986 or 1987 Ford Taurus won the comparison, but I could
be mistaken, it was a long time ago and the comparison may have only
been with American cars. But how does that prove your point? Should
they top-rate an American car out of pity? THAT would be biased!
> Just one.
>
> Can't do it?
>
Name a single car Detroit has built that is superior. While Honda
introduces a DOHC 24-valve V-6 with variable-valve timing in their
Accord, what does GM introduce? The Lumina! While Toyota introduces a
4.7 liter DOHC 32-valve V-8 in their Tundra and a redesign every 4
years, Dodge gives us prehistoric pushrod technology and the same truck
model for 7 or 8 years!. While the Japanese continually introduce
superior 4-cylinder and V-6 engine technology every four years, GM pats
itself on the back for perfecting their 3800 pushrod motor after 14
years. I won't even mention fit-and-finish.
> Neither can I.
>
> And here's the clincher as evidence of the bias of CU:
> Does it even sound plauseable to you that NO American car ever made,
> ever won in their class? None?
>
Yeah, that's a real clincher. Name a single American car, in any class
except SUVs and Trucks, that could possibly be considered the top in
its class. What, the Neon? The Malibu or Stratus, the LeSabre, the
Contour, the Intrepid, the Seville STS, the Taurus? LOL!
If you were really so certain of your position, you wouldn't be so
defensive and insecure about Consumer Reports' results.
--
Brian A.
1996 Dodge Intrepid ES
1999 Tracker 12SC
Kate H.
>none of the problems they cite, and all of my freinds who own rice
>burners HAVE had problems....
Most people learn by adulthood that a sure way to loose credibility is to use
absolutes in argument. Your defensiveness is showing.
--Kate
~~~Kate
1998 GMC Safari
1999 Coleman Cheyenne
"My Child is an Honor Student at Domestica Schola" ;)
"These ARE the good old days!"
Mark
-performance, -reliability, -economy, -technology? Seems sometimes
it's the marketing dept. who "designs" most of these. Let's see how
many valves we can stuff in there...Case in point: I heard an auto
reviewer on the radio yesterday morning talking about the newest
Lexus. The only aspect he talked about were the 76 buttons that were
within reach of the driver. Is this really high tech or just
marketing bloat?
Time & again Detroit engineers refine the "prehistoric pushrod" engine
because they can get equivalent performance with better reliability
and lower weight out of this configuration.
I had a 1969 Firebird once with a OHC inline 6 in it. 4 barrel, dual
exhaust--pretty potent for its day--born in Detroit. It WASN'T
reliable (nevertheless you DO see many more '69 Firebirds & Camaros on
the road today than anything that came from the orient in '69).
Just my $.02
Mark
(Let's get back to talking about pop-ups & camping :-)
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:28:46 GMT, Brian A. <abb...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
SNIP
Dell*Phinus
mtngr...@aol.com (MtnGrmetNY) wrote:
> You know was trying to find a link for you. When I was researching
these I
> found a site with so many testimonies from Astro owners that claimed
these vans
> just don't 'quit'. They had unbelievable mileage on them. Evidently
routine
> oil changes will keep them running a very long time. Sorry I couldn't
find the
> link, maybe if you did a search.
> Debbie
>
Don't know if this was what you saw, but these guys know everything
there is to know about Astros. Their favorite passtime is putting 350s
in them.
http://forums.vmag.com/mvastro1199/
--
Dell*Phinus
* *
*
*
Brian A.
> Since when does multi-valve and overhead cams equate to high
> -performance, -reliability, -economy, -technology?
Multi-valve engines do equate to higher performance because a 32 valve
V-8 can breath better and produce more horsepower at higher rpm than
the same engine with 16 valves. Take a look at the 5.4 liter V-8 in the
Lincoln Navigator compared with the stock Expedition (300hp vs. 260
hp). Also, take a look at the DOHC 24-valve 3.0 liter V-6 in the Taurus
compared with the pushrod V-6 (200hp vs 155hp).
Multi-valve engines and overhead cams do not equate to reliability, I
never made that claim. Good engineering, attention to detail, and
excellent quality control equate to reliability. This is where the
Japanese excel.
I don't know exactly how they relate to economy. Again, I never made
that claim. Both technologies are capable of good fuel economy.
They simply are more advanced technology. They allow you to get more
horsepower and a wider power band from the same size engine. They also
reduce NVH (noise, vibration, harshness). Variable valve timing is the
current state of technology (with direct gasoline injection on the
horizon) which I don't know of any American manufacturer incorporates
into their engine lineups. I don't know what type evidence you're
looking for. Please tell me what you consider advanced technology in an
engine.
Seems sometimes
> it's the marketing dept. who "designs" most of these.
Marketers as engineers? If you truly believe that then you've lost all
credibility in this debate.
Let's see how
> many valves we can stuff in there...Case in point: I heard an auto
> reviewer on the radio yesterday morning talking about the newest
> Lexus. The only aspect he talked about were the 76 buttons that were
> within reach of the driver. Is this really high tech or just
> marketing bloat?
Probably marketing bloat, but you're referring to a reviewer claiming
it as technology, not Lexus. GM in the mid 80s tried passing off that
kind of junk as technology. Remember those hideous digital displays?
Admittedly, the Japanese did this too. Those were more a reflection of
that decade than automotive engineering.
> Time & again Detroit engineers refine the "prehistoric pushrod" engine
> because they can get equivalent performance
At the expense of NVH compared with DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder,
variable valve timing engines.
>with better reliability
Better reliability than what? Their previous generation pushrod engine?
My reliability claims don't necessarily criticize American engines.
With engines I was only referring to advanced technology.
> and lower weight out of this configuration.
Lower weight than an identical displacement all-aluminum engine? Highly
doubtful. Who really benefits from defending the pushrod engine?
Not the consumer. Even GM knows it's obsolete as they're developing a
whole new lineup of advanced technology in-line engines.
> I had a 1969 Firebird once with a OHC inline 6 in it. 4 barrel, dual
> exhaust--pretty potent for its day--born in Detroit. It WASN'T
> reliable (nevertheless you DO see many more '69 Firebirds & Camaros on
> the road today than anything that came from the orient in '69).
That may be true, but mostly because they're (justifiable)
classic "muscle cars" from a bygone era. It's this nostalgic, arrogant,
resistant-to-change mindset that prevented Detroit from keeping their
lead. Now their clamoring to regain the market share they previously
enjoyed, but it's too late.
> Just my $.02
>
> Mark
> (Let's get back to talking about pop-ups & camping :-)
I agree, but not many people are camping right now. It's either this or
politics!
>
--
Brian A.
1996 Dodge Intrepid ES
1999 Tracker 12SC
Mark J Strawcutter
At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled maintenance"
including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
Mark J Strawcutter
>absolutes in argument. Your defensiveness is showing.
An alternate position is that relativism is a cop-out.
Andrew
because they timing belt broke before it was scheduled for maintenance. If
something breaks on a car, it is a reliability problem. If a car requires
lots of (expensive) maintenance it is another thing altogether.
"Mark J Strawcutter" <mjs...@grove.iup.edu> wrote in message
news:t1d1116...@corp.supernews.com...
> At 60k miles an American made car breaks a timing belt. $600 to repair.
>
> At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled maintenance"
> including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
>
> Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
>
Mark
the timing belt replaced on their OHC engines. The Japanese car
requires it as scheduled maintenance so shame on you if it breaks.
The American car likely also recommends it by this point (at the
dealer service dept.) but us consumers are used to bring told that
they are designed to last forever without any major maintenance. If
the belt breaks at 60K it's shame on the manufacturer. The belt is
for all intents exactly the same in both cars. It's the consumers'
expectations fueled by the manufacturers marketing that differs.
This does look to be changing for US makes. Saturn is a good example.
Their dealerships just wrap their arms around the buyer and make them
feel all warm & loved about their new purchase. The dealer informs
the buyer about needed maintenance, the service dept. doesn't ignore
the needs until something breaks, etc. I've heard this approach
denigrated as marketing for women but seems to me to be the best way
to treat the customer. Time will tell...
Mark
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:18:22 GMT, "Andrew" <an...@home.com> wrote:
}What do you mean by this? I'd say the US car has the reliability
problem
}because they timing belt broke before it was scheduled for
maintenance. If
}something breaks on a car, it is a reliability problem. If a car
requires
}lots of (expensive) maintenance it is another thing altogether.
So if the manufacturer recommends it be replaced at 40K they'd be
golden? Nobody would rate the car as too expensice to operate?
Dick
and had to replace the clutch three times. He was really bad mouthing
it. Then he got a Datsun. Not a word about any trobles, only what a
wonderfull car it was. Then I heard through the grape vine that he had
already replaced two clutches on it. I discussed how he used his clutch
and pointed out that he did not know how to drive a stick shift car. No
more clutch problems. Point is that it seems like people like to defend
imports more than American ones.
Andrew
manufacturer says it does, it is defective. That means that the manufacturer
is misstating the durability of its product. If the product does not live up
to the specifications of the manufacturer, it is not the consumer's fault.
I'd call this just one more reason to buy an asian car. They can give you
realistic service schedules to make the car last, and they do.
Lets say that your example did in fact happen. A broken timing belt can
easily lead to much more serious problems, which of course wouldn't be
covered under warranty since you stated the manufacturers had the same
service schedule. So you're out $600 for the asian car but could possibly be
out far more for the domestic car.
"Mark" <mac...@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:qc8d1t4srq1lvran5...@4ax.com...
Andrew
much as a light bulb in the Civic outside of normal wear items (2 sets or
front brake pads and 1 set of wipers in 125 000km). My S10 however has a
front end that sounds like a meat grinder, it rattles in about 6 places(only
11 000 km on it), the cruise didn't work at all when I picked it, it had and
8 inch scratch upon delivery, one wheel balance weight is missing on
delivery (lead seperated from the mount), an emblem fell off the side, the
clear protective plastic strips on the box are peeling.
I'm really beginning to miss the Civic. The car felt more solid after 125K
than my S10 does at 11K (and the S10 started out feeling much tighter).
"Dick" <hrli...@att.net> wrote in message news:3A16A690...@att.net...
> Just reminds me of a fellow I knew who had a Pontiac with a stick shift
> and had to replace the clutch three times. He was really bad mouthing
> it. Then he got a Datsun. Not a word about any trobles, only what a
> wonderfull car it was. Then I heard through the grape vine that he had
> already replaced two clutches on it. I discussed how he used his clutch
> and pointed out that he did not know how to drive a stick shift car. No
> more clutch problems. Point is that it seems like people like to defend
> imports more than American ones.
>
> Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
> >
Dick
not have to pay the wages (are you willing to work for less?) and taxes
that American companies do.
Most other countries are use the value added tax system. Therefore
there is no tax added when shipped to the U.S. American cars have the
taxes added all along the way. All income tax and Social Security tax
by employees (15% & more of their salary) must be added to the value of
the car. Unfortunately the U.S. worker in other fields must pick up the
SS tab. However, American cars shipped to those countries not only have
the American taxes added they must also pay the value added tax.
It is possible to buy a car cheaper in the U.S. than in Japan.
They appease us by having assembly plants in the U.S. but those are
almost totally automated and still use imported parts. Perhaps cheaper
for them to ship the parts and assemble here.
Of course American companies attempt to do much of the same by importing
as many parts as possible.
So an import should be and normally is a bargain.
However, no import that I can think of fits into the intermediate van
position similar to the Astro/Safari. There is no longer a domestic
that fits into the category.
Brian A.
Dick <hrli...@att.net> wrote:
> Just reminds me of a fellow I knew who had a Pontiac with a stick
shift
> and had to replace the clutch three times. He was really bad mouthing
> it. Then he got a Datsun. Not a word about any trobles, only what a
> wonderfull car it was. Then I heard through the grape vine that he
had
> already replaced two clutches on it. I discussed how he used his
clutch
> and pointed out that he did not know how to drive a stick shift car.
No
> more clutch problems. Point is that it seems like people like to
defend
> imports more than American ones.
What? What incentive do consumers have for this? Millions of
independently-minded people just "seem" to like to defend imports more
than Americans. That argument really takes the cake! It's obvious you
guys are unwilling to concede a single point here (so much for open-
mindedness in this newsgroup), so there's no point in me continuing
this discussion.
>
> Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
> >
> > At 60k miles an American made car breaks a timing belt. $600 to
repair.
> >
> > At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled maintenance"
> > including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
> >
> > Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
> >
Weak, weak argument. I expected better. I continue to hear you guys
criticize CR, but yet I haven't heard you suggest a more unbiased
source (because there isn't one). Oh, that's right, I'll take the word
of some guy's friends! That's real credible.
> > Mark J Strawcutter
> > Indiana PA
> > '97 Coleman Key West
>
--
Andrew
"Dick" <hrli...@att.net> wrote in message news:3A16C444...@att.net...
> Actually the imports should deliver more value for the dollar. They do
> not have to pay the wages (are you willing to work for less?) and taxes
> that American companies do.
My Civic was built in Ontario by Canadian unionized workers. The taxes and
tarriffs are paid. As for value for the dollar. Imports are the hottest
selling vehicles regardless of price. This price is paid by many thousands
of people who know they are getting what they pay for.
> Most other countries are use the value added tax system. Therefore
> there is no tax added when shipped to the U.S. American cars have the
> taxes added all along the way. All income tax and Social Security tax
> by employees (15% & more of their salary) must be added to the value of
> the car. Unfortunately the U.S. worker in other fields must pick up the
> SS tab. However, American cars shipped to those countries not only have
> the American taxes added they must also pay the value added tax.
Most "asian" cars are built in North America these days. For a while, not
too long ago, Toyota had more North American content in its cars than
Chrysler.
> It is possible to buy a car cheaper in the U.S. than in Japan.
>
> They appease us by having assembly plants in the U.S. but those are
> almost totally automated and still use imported parts. Perhaps cheaper
> for them to ship the parts and assemble here.
You should read up on the actual content of each car.
> Of course American companies attempt to do much of the same by importing
> as many parts as possible.
>
> So an import should be and normally is a bargain.
>
> However, no import that I can think of fits into the intermediate van
> position similar to the Astro/Safari. There is no longer a domestic
> that fits into the category.
Very true, but the Astro won't be around much longer.
>
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > My last two vehicles. A 95 Civic and an 00 S10. I never had to change so
> > much as a light bulb in the Civic outside of normal wear items (2 sets
or
> > front brake pads and 1 set of wipers in 125 000km). My S10 however has a
> > front end that sounds like a meat grinder, it rattles in about 6
places(only
> > 11 000 km on it), the cruise didn't work at all when I picked it, it had
and
> > 8 inch scratch upon delivery, one wheel balance weight is missing on
> > delivery (lead seperated from the mount), an emblem fell off the side,
the
> > clear protective plastic strips on the box are peeling.
> >
> > I'm really beginning to miss the Civic. The car felt more solid after
125K
> > than my S10 does at 11K (and the S10 started out feeling much tighter).
> >
> > "Dick" <hrli...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3A16A690...@att.net...
> > > Just reminds me of a fellow I knew who had a Pontiac with a stick
shift
> > > and had to replace the clutch three times. He was really bad mouthing
> > > it. Then he got a Datsun. Not a word about any trobles, only what a
> > > wonderfull car it was. Then I heard through the grape vine that he
had
> > > already replaced two clutches on it. I discussed how he used his
clutch
> > > and pointed out that he did not know how to drive a stick shift car.
No
> > > more clutch problems. Point is that it seems like people like to
defend
> > > imports more than American ones.
> > >
> > > Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 60k miles an American made car breaks a timing belt. $600 to
repair.
> > > >
> > > > At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled maintenance"
> > > > including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
> > > >
> > > > Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
> > > >
Dick
Andrew wrote:
>
> My Civic was built in Ontario by Canadian unionized workers. The taxes and
> tarriffs are paid. As for value for the dollar.
Built with a almost completely automatic assembly line using parts made
in Japan. They did not pay Japan's value added tax. Canada may have a
tariff to supplement that discrepancy.
> Imports are the hottest
> selling vehicles regardless of price. This price is paid by many thousands
> of people who know they are getting what they pay for.
Exactly what I was saying. They still have the price advantage over our
factories.
Most American lines are trying to compete using many parts are built in
other countries.
>
> Most "asian" cars are built in North America these days.
"Assembled". However, I sure see a lot of them being unloaded at the
docks on the west coast.
American made parts are those that can be made with minimum labor.
"Momma San" still makes horn buttons in her living room and delivers
when required.
Fortunately cars are now lasting so long they do not have the effect on
the economy that they did 30 or more years ago. 200K is not unusual for
any vehicle. A friend has a small Ford engine with 400K on it and it
has never been overhauled but it has been lubricated with synthetics
since new if that has anything to do with it. People are putting their
extra money into computers and other high tech. items.
Mark
have bought a vehicle that was a bit on the expensive end of its class
I was never disappointed--and the resale was always better as well.
I've always felt that that is why the Japanese cars (not the orient in
general, Korean cars mostly are poor values) are good values overall.
With my history with US cars & trucks (1 lemon out of 9) I am in no
great hurry to try an import.
Mark
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:00:39 GMT, Brian A. <abb...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
}In article <3A16A690...@att.net>,
} Dick <hrli...@att.net> wrote:
}> Just reminds me of a fellow I knew who had a Pontiac with a stick
}shift
}> and had to replace the clutch three times. He was really bad
mouthing
}> it. Then he got a Datsun. Not a word about any trobles, only what
a
}> wonderfull car it was. Then I heard through the grape vine that he
}had
}> already replaced two clutches on it. I discussed how he used his
}clutch
}> and pointed out that he did not know how to drive a stick shift
car.
}No
}> more clutch problems. Point is that it seems like people like to
}defend
}> imports more than American ones.
}
}What? What incentive do consumers have for this? Millions of
}independently-minded people just "seem" to like to defend imports
more
}than Americans. That argument really takes the cake! It's obvious you
}guys are unwilling to concede a single point here (so much for open-
}mindedness in this newsgroup), so there's no point in me continuing
}this discussion.
}
}
}>
}> Mark J Strawcutter wrote:
}> >
}> > At 60k miles an American made car breaks a timing belt. $600 to
}repair.
}> >
}> > At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled
maintenance"
}> > including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
}> >
}> > Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
}> >
}
}Weak, weak argument. I expected better. I continue to hear you guys
}criticize CR, but yet I haven't heard you suggest a more unbiased
}source (because there isn't one). Oh, that's right, I'll take the
word
}of some guy's friends! That's real credible.
}
Andrew
have had sold for way more than other cars in its age/class. Specifically,
my Civic. I bought it for about $18 000 and 5 years later sold it for $13
000 (CDN). 5 grand over 5 years depreciation is amazing. My S10 which is
leased has a depreciation of $14 000 over 3 years on a $27 000 purchase
price.
"Dick" <hrli...@att.net> wrote in message news:3A16FD25...@att.net...
Jinxter
If your engine has a timing belt, it is a required change at the
mileage/time interval stated. A timing chain OTOH will pretty much last the
life of the engine. It doesn't matter who makes the car, belts need to be
replaced as they WILL go bad. The manufacturers know this, and you know
this. That's why it's scheduled.
"Mark" <mac...@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:qc8d1t4srq1lvran5...@4ax.com...
> I think you missed the point here. The point is that both cars needed
> the timing belt replaced on their OHC engines. The Japanese car
> requires it as scheduled maintenance so shame on you if it breaks.
> The American car likely also recommends it by this point (at the
> dealer service dept.) but us consumers are used to bring told that
> they are designed to last forever without any major maintenance. If
> the belt breaks at 60K it's shame on the manufacturer. The belt is
> for all intents exactly the same in both cars. It's the consumers'
> expectations fueled by the manufacturers marketing that differs.
>
> This does look to be changing for US makes. Saturn is a good example.
> Their dealerships just wrap their arms around the buyer and make them
> feel all warm & loved about their new purchase. The dealer informs
> the buyer about needed maintenance, the service dept. doesn't ignore
> the needs until something breaks, etc. I've heard this approach
> denigrated as marketing for women but seems to me to be the best way
> to treat the customer. Time will tell...
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:18:22 GMT, "Andrew" <an...@home.com> wrote:
>
> }What do you mean by this? I'd say the US car has the reliability
> problem
> }because they timing belt broke before it was scheduled for
> maintenance. If
> }something breaks on a car, it is a reliability problem. If a car
> requires
> }lots of (expensive) maintenance it is another thing altogether.
>
> So if the manufacturer recommends it be replaced at 40K they'd be
> golden? Nobody would rate the car as too expensice to operate?
>
> }
> }"Mark J Strawcutter" <mjs...@grove.iup.edu> wrote in message
> }news:t1d1116...@corp.supernews.com...
> }> At 60k miles an American made car breaks a timing belt. $600 to
> repair.
> }>
> }> At 60k miles a pacific-rim car goes in for "scheduled maintenance"
> }> including a timing belt replacement. Cost is $600.
> }>
> }> Guess which one CU reports as a reliabilty problem.
> }>
Jim Redelfs
> ...It's obvious you
> guys are unwilling to concede a single point here (so much for open-
> mindedness in this newsgroup)
Aw, c'mon, Brian! Refusal to CONCEDE a point does not disallow an open mind.
> so there's no point in me continuing this discussion.
You're probably right, there. The [American-made vs Asian-nameplated]
debate is just like it was back when we ALL drove American-made JUNQUE and
the debate was Chevy vs Ford vs MoPar.
My esteemed brother is an avid Toyota buyer. Admittedly, he has had few
problems with his cars.
There is some debate whether American-made cars have improved
substantially (I think they have) or, since they began building them
domestically, Asian-nameplated cars have simply DECLINED in quality to
meet the competition.
I've been a union member for >27 years. I bought a Chevy - made in Canada
- with many foreign-made parts. The difference is certainly blurring.
:)
JR
Jim Redelfs
<mac...@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote:
> It's been my experience that you get what you paid for. Every time I
> have bought a vehicle that was a bit on the expensive end of its class
> I was never disappointed--and the resale was always better as well.
> I've always felt that that is why the Japanese cars (not the orient in
> general, Korean cars mostly are poor values) are good values overall.
> With my history with US cars & trucks (1 lemon out of 9) I am in no
> great hurry to try an import.
Even my (bought new) '75 Chevy Vega was NOT a lemon - one of only an
apparent handful of them that WASN'T!
I bought my very first "foreign" car in 1996 - a Geo Metro. It's a Suzuki
(Swift) made by Cami Autoworks in Canada. Soooooo... Does that make it
foreign or domestic? It's a GREAT car!
Of course, so is my '97 Chevy S10 and '94 Corsica. I wish I'd bought TWO
Corsicas now that they quit making them. This poor car has been through
hell and high water - and even both at the SAME TIME - with three
daughters. It's been "front-ended" once, rear-ended twice, ridden along a
highway guardrail and even hailed into submission, but it still keeps
going. Nice car. Bought new, I've probably driven it five times. I wish
I'd gotten it with a four-cylinder engine though: It's a real hotrod with
the 3.1L V6. My daughters had fun blowing the doors off of their
boyfriends' cars. I kept telling them to NOT do that, considering the ego
of most young men their age, particularly regarding their cars.
An old hotrodder from yesteryear, I get a kick out of kids today and their
cars. My, how times have changed. The "horsepower" is no longer under
the hood - it's in the DASHBOARD!! (High-powered sound system - Thump,
thump thump driving down the street.)
:)
JR
mounta...@mindspring.invalid
wrote:
>If your engine has a timing belt, it is a required change at the
>mileage/time interval stated. A timing chain OTOH will pretty much last the
>life of the engine. It doesn't matter who makes the car, belts need to be
>replaced as they WILL go bad. The manufacturers know this, and you know
>this. That's why it's scheduled.
And the tow truck drivers know this, too! A few years back I had to
have my 88 Honda towed. It had about 60,000 miles on it and the tow
truck driver was sure it was the timing belt (it wasn't). He said they
go bad like clockwork at 50,000 miles and he had towed more than a few
Hondas for those owners who hadn't followed the scheduled maintenance.
--
Margo in Florida
84 Coleman Cape Cod, 00 Safari :-) :-) :-)
un-totaled 92 Safari, being fixed
Brian A.
jim.r...@redelfs.com (Jim Redelfs) wrote:
> In article <8v6jkl$tmg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Brian A. <abbanat@my-
deja.com> wrote:
>
> > ...It's obvious you
> > guys are unwilling to concede a single point here (so much for open-
> > mindedness in this newsgroup)
>
> Aw, c'mon, Brian! Refusal to CONCEDE a point does not disallow an
open mind.
True, but I can make the distinction between someone debating openly
with compelling facts and statistics and someone who is just being
stubborn. I'm willing to cite countless sources substantiating my
position but I haven't heard one from the opposition; only anecdotal
evidence and opinions. I beg them to PROVE their point, otherwise I'm
bored.
>
> > so there's no point in me continuing this discussion.
>
> There is some debate whether American-made cars have improved
> substantially (I think they have) or, since they began building them
> domestically, Asian-nameplated cars have simply DECLINED in quality to
> meet the competition.
I think it's the former, not the latter. American cars are
substantially improved over yesteryear.
>
> I've been a union member for >27 years. I bought a Chevy - made in
Canada
> - with many foreign-made parts. The difference is certainly blurring.
Absolutely. I have owned only American cars but I find it hard to
justify buying American "nameplates" since we have the Ford/Jaguar/
Mazda/Aston Martin/Land Rover conglomerate, the Daimler/Chrysler/
Mitsubishi conglomerate, the GM/Isuzu/Suzuki/Saab conglomerate, and the
Nissan/Renault conglomerate that all share engineering expertise and
vehicle platforms. The only real engineering independents appear to be
Honda (although they have rebadged Isuzu Rodeos, Troopers, and Oases(?)
as their own), Toyota, BMW, and Volkswagen. I may have missed a few
others.
wizard4440
--
"Jinxter" <shay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBRR5.7763$xd3.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Info note here...
>
> If your engine has a timing belt, it is a required change at the
> mileage/time interval stated. A timing chain OTOH will pretty much last
the
> life of the engine. It doesn't matter who makes the car, belts need to be
> replaced as they WILL go bad. The manufacturers know this, and you know
> this. That's why it's scheduled.
Not exactly a true statement. I have seem broken timing chains. Not often
but it does occur. What DOES normally happen with a timing chain is that
over time the chain will stretch. When it does get enough play in it and the
conditions are right it will jump a gear tooth. Timing gear that is.
Ofcourse when this happens your car runs out of time depending on the
gear<s> jumped.
meldx
after all these back and forth answers on Japanese cars vs american...
BLA..BLA...BLA.... don't even try to tow a RV with an japanese car... you'll
get yourself into trouble... so, does it make it a better car???? pull a
Bayside with a Honda Civic or Accord, and I garanty you'll go to the dealer
much often to change many parts that did where not strong enough for
this.....
Imports are good if you are only traveling and sleeping into
hotela/motels... now this is a pop-up NG ... and count how many pop-ups are
pulled with imports.... less than 2% is my guess...
so does this prove a point.... well maybe that there are no campgrounds in
Japan!
Mel
"Brian A." a écrit :