1959 Bel Air versus 2009 Malibu - NMC but at least car-related
pws
http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/2052648/828147589/name/crash.wmv
Pat
XS11E
It looks phony to me.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
pws
> It looks phony to me.
Was that sarcasm? If not, I will bet you $1,000.00 at 10 to 1 odds that
this is not phony.
Hell, I can come up with $5,000.00, I will bet it against your $500.00
right now, as r.a.m.m.m. is our witness. :-)
Pat
Tim M.
If you weren't working so hard to improve the usenet by blocking
Google posts, you might have seen this one, which contains a link to
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's web page (http://
www.iihs.org) on which the instrumented, videotaped, actual, crash
test is front page news.
Ah, well. At least usenet is better for this post having been ignored
by you and other Google Groups detractors!
Tim
Chris D'Agnolo
watched many crash test videos. I've watched allot of them (they are hugely
interesting to see which vehicles do better and which do worse) and never
even crossed my mind that this could have been faked and I'm one of those
'conspiracy theorists'
Chris
99BBB
"Tim M." <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0cd772c-d107-49fa...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
pws
> Good for you Tim! Thanks for the direct link. Mr. XS11E must not have
> watched many crash test videos. I've watched allot of them (they are
> hugely interesting to see which vehicles do better and which do worse)
> and never even crossed my mind that this could have been faked and I'm
> one of those 'conspiracy theorists'
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
Here is another video that shows the inside of the cars, and the effects
on the crash test dummies during the crash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I
Nice interior on the Bel Air, it looks like they wasted a nicely
restored classic car for this test.
Pat
Tim M.
While it did ,ook pretty nice inside, here's the scoop ont he car:
"when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test
there was one thing the organization didn't want and some things it
did.
"We didn't want to crash a museum piece," Mr. Zuby said. "We were not
looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality."
But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little
surface rust would be acceptable.
They found what they wanted in Indiana. "The frame was sound and all
the body panels were sound," he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder
engine and was in driving condition.
The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the
odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in
Virginia."
XS11E
> XS11E wrote:
>
>> It looks phony to me.
>
> Was that sarcasm? If not, I will bet you $1,000.00 at 10 to 1 odds
> that this is not phony.
It's phony, it was very carefully staged to prove the point they
intended to prove. Very much like a certain "News" network blowing up
trucks.
Christopher Muto
news:hatfr1$uji$1...@aioe.org...
phony or not, wouldn't you rather die behind the wheel of a '59 bel air then
be seen alive driving a 2009 malibu? ;)
Christopher Muto
The comments under that video are priceless!
Funny:
"that will buff right out"
"I was hoping the 59' would eat? the 09' and crap out something better
looking."
Interesting:
"It appears that there is no engine or tranny in the engine compartment.
That makes the test suspect and dishonest if that is the? case."
"I was a volunteer fireman at the site of a head-on collision. Both cars
were heavily damaged. One was a new 1998 Lumina. The other was a 1972
Caprice (exact? same frame as 68 Impala).The two Lumina passengers had
severe but non-life threating injuries. In the Caprice were three dead
teenagers all wearing their seat belts!"
and they go on and on...
XS11E
> phony or not, wouldn't you rather die behind the wheel of a '59
> bel air then be seen alive driving a 2009 malibu? ;)
Neither. Notice they didn't mention that both cars were junk BEFORE
the crash, the only difference was they were mangled junk after! <GD&R>
pws
> phony or not, wouldn't you rather die behind the wheel of a '59 bel air then
> be seen alive driving a 2009 malibu? ;)
You do bring up a good point, and I am not even a big classic car fan. ;-)
I'll definitely take death in my Miata over a life of driving almost any
American-made car, especially American cars manufactured from about 1970
to the present, with the possible exception of the Corvette.
Pat
pws
> It's phony, it was very carefully staged to prove the point they
> intended to prove. Very much like a certain "News" network blowing up
> trucks.
Whoosh! That one flew right over me. :-)
I am guessing that the news network being referred to is Fox, but what
is this about the staged blowing up of trucks?
Pat
pws
> Neither. Notice they didn't mention that both cars were junk BEFORE
> the crash, the only difference was they were mangled junk after! <GD&R>
I would be interested to see how a 2009 Miata holds up against a 1959
model lead sled.
I would like to see that in a controlled crash video that is, not with
me driving either car.
40 mph each, that adds up to a nice little impact.
"It'll buff right out" - lol
Patrick
XS11E
Fox has never been that dishonest, NBC has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC
General Motors
Dateline NBC aired an investigative report about General Motors pickup
trucks allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents due to poor
design of fuel tanks. Dateline's film showed a sample of a low speed
accident with the fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC
producers had rigged the truck with remotely detonated explosives. The
program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged. GM
investigators studied the film, and discovered that smoke actually came
out of the fuel tank a split-second before impact. GM subsequently
filed an anti-defamation lawsuit against NBC after conducting an
extensive investigation. On February 18, 1993 GM conducted a highly
publicized point-by-point rebuttal that lasted nearly two hours after
announcing the lawsuit. The lawsuit was quickly settled by NBC, and
Jane Pauley read an apology on the program.
The following Dateline NBC producers were dismissed: Jeff Diamond,
executive producer; David Rummel, senior producer; and Robert Read,
producer of the report on the pickups. Michele Gillen, the reporter
involved in the segment, was transferred to Miami station WTVJ. Michael
G. Gartner, president of the news division, resigned under pressure.
Keep reading past this to more of NBC's questionable tactics.
XS11E
> I would be interested to see how a 2009 Miata holds up against a
> 1959 model lead sled.
>
> I would like to see that in a controlled crash video that is, not
> with me driving either car.
I'll set it up but you have to drive the Miata, we'll get someone to
drive a 1959 model. Since you didn't specify the make, chose between
Greyhound, Mack or Peterbuilt. ;-)
Chris D'Agnolo
Chris
99BBB
"XS11E" <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CA27569966...@127.0.0.1...
Tim M.
> This might be the most reasonable point yet ;-)
I want a 1959 Chevy El Camino (based on the Bel Air chassis) but
modified like this:
http://www.truckinweb.com/features/0806tr_1959_chevy_el_camino/photo_05.html
The 2009/2010 Chevy Malibu is a world class family car that beat the
Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry heads-up in most comparison tests;
the first domestic car to do so since the original Taurus in 1986.
Maybe a boring car from an enthusiast's standpoint, but certainly not
junk!
XS11E
> The 2009/2010 Chevy Malibu is a world class family car that beat
> the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry heads-up in most comparison
> tests; the first domestic car to do so since the original Taurus
> in 1986. Maybe a boring car from an enthusiast's standpoint, but
> certainly not junk!
It's junk as are all Chevrolets. CR once rated all Chevy models from
1957 to current as unaceptable due to frequency of repair. That was
some years back but things haven't changed.
"The 2010 Chevrolet Malibu reliability score of 5.0 out of 10 is the
Predicted Reliability rating provided by J.D. Power and Associates."
Pathetic.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Affordable-Midsize-Cars/
Notice, as expected, the Chevy shows the LOWEST reliability score of
all cars listed?
Geary Morton
<9836e9c3-9d09-4875...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They found what they wanted in Indiana. "The frame was sound and all
> the body panels were sound," he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder
> engine and was in driving condition.
>
Hmmmmm, that's a fairly slender inline six, which as I recall left lots
of open space on either side of the engine compartment. I wonder how
the '59 would have fared had it been equipped with the wider 283 V8, or
even better, the much wider big block 348. I'm thinking it would've
fared better.
--Geary
Tim M.
> "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The 2009/2010 Chevy Malibu is a world class family car that beat
> > the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry heads-up in most comparison
> > tests; the first domestic car to do so since the original Taurus
> > in 1986. Maybe a boring car from an enthusiast's standpoint, but
> > certainly not junk!
>
> It's junk as are all Chevrolets. CR once rated all Chevy models from
> 1957 to current as unaceptable due to frequency of repair. That was
> some years back but things haven't changed.
>
> "The 2010 Chevrolet Malibu reliability score of 5.0 out of 10 is the
> Predicted Reliability rating provided by J.D. Power and Associates."
>
> Pathetic.
>
>
> Notice, as expected, the Chevy shows the LOWEST reliability score of
> all cars listed?
Consumer Reports, on the LT 4-cylinder and the LTZ 6-cylinder 2009
Malibu: "reliability of the 4-cylinder has been above average and the
V6 average."
Consumer Guide: "Chevy has taken Malibu from the realm of rental fleet
darling to a must-see Best Buy in this highly competitive segment.
This midsize sedan stands out for its refined powertrains, smart
interior design, and value pricing. We especially like the smooth,
quiet 4-cylinder engine and frugal Hybrid. Considering a Honda Accord
or Toyota Camry? Be sure to add Malibu to your test-drive list. "
Consumer guide awarded the highest placing mid-size sedan in the
entire market at 73 points. That would be the Chevy Malibu Hybrid.
The Malibu LS and LTX 4-cylinder models scored 69 points and the LTZ 6-
cylinder model scored 71 points. The class average was 63 points.
JD Powers lists the Chevy Malibu at 5 stars for Overall Mechanical
Quality; the Toyota Camry at 4.5 stars. The Malibu gets 4.5 stars
for powertrain.mechanical quality, the Camry gets 3.5 stars. The
Malibu gets 5 stars for body and interior quality - mechanical, the
Camry gets 4.5. In fact, in every JD Powers quality rating there
is, except interior design (styling), the Malibu outscores the Camry.
Doesn't sound like junk to me, nor does it sound "pathetic."
Chris D'Agnolo
are probably all correct, I don't doubt them but, allot of Americans have
been burned too many times by US automakers, to ever be 'fooled again' as
they see it. The short sighted American mfr's have for too many years, used
high quality marketing instead of high quality materials and instead of high
quality R&D!
To get these people back in their fold, they will have to build cars like
you are describing this vehicle, for year after year, slowly convincing
these people that they (the mfr) can again be trusted. Does Detroit have the
cash or the patience or the fortitude to do this the 'right way'?
That is to be seen and it is scary for American jobs. Thank goodness the
foreign mfrs were coerced into building here if they want to sell here or,
we'd be screwed!
I'm rooting for America here, I haven't fully given up on them but they are
going to have to buck the "American business model" of short sighted profit
mongers. Is there any chance of that? I do not know.
Chris
99BBB
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9192fe8-5138-4373...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
mike
> In article
> Hmmmmm, that's a fairly slender inline six, which as I recall left lots
> of open space on either side of the engine compartment. I wonder how
> the '59 would have fared had it been equipped with the wider 283 V8, or
> even better, the much wider big block 348. I'm thinking it would've
> fared better.
those late '50s/early 60's Chevys with the X frames didn't
do all that great in the old demolition derby contests, no
hope vs Buick Electras and Merc Marquis, let alone
the full sized Mopars.
I would have liked to see a '59 Imperial for a true test of
Detroit Iron. X-Frames not so good in collisions.
**
mike
**
XS11E
> On Oct 13, 2:34�pm, XS11E <xs11...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> "The 2010 Chevrolet Malibu reliability score of 5.0 out of 10 is
>> the Predicted Reliability rating provided by J.D. Power and
>> Associates."
>>
>> Pathetic. �
> JD Powers lists the Chevy Malibu at 5 stars
> Doesn't sound like junk to me, nor does it sound "pathetic."
You're quoting the same people who rated the Malibu's reliability worst
of all cars in it's comparison?
Sounds like junk to me, I think you just helped me prove my point.
Tim M.
> "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 2:34 pm, XS11E <xs11...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "The 2010 Chevrolet Malibu reliability score of 5.0 out of 10 is
> >> the Predicted Reliability rating provided by J.D. Power and
> >> Associates."
>
> >> Pathetic.
> > JD Powers lists the Chevy Malibu at 5 stars
> > Doesn't sound like junk to me, nor does it sound "pathetic."
>
> You're quoting the same people who rated the Malibu's reliability worst
> of all cars in it's comparison?
>
> Sounds like junk to me, I think you just helped me prove my point.
No, in the JD Powers published results that I quoted, five stars was
the highest rating, and only the Malibu achieved it.
The reliability projection that you are quoting is based on J.D.
Powers 3-year study of 2006 models, when the current Malibu didn't
exist (it was introduced in 2008) and shows that Chevrolets of 2006
had an average of 184 problems per 100 cars during that three year
period, as opposed to an average of 173 problems per 100 cars for all
2006 cars that J.D. Powers surveyed.
Now, given that J.D. Powers themselves rated the 2008 and 2009 Malibu
as being higher quality than the other cars in the mid-size sedan
class, and given that the 2008 and 2009 model Malibus are completely
different cars than the 2006 models; I would say that the "projected"
reliability of those models based on the 2006 results are likely to
prove inaccurate.
Even if not, having one additional problem for every 10 cars over a
three year period than the class average hardly seems like an honest
basis for calling a car "junk" or "pathetic."
Tim M.
> Tim, this is the US, facts don't trump 'gut'! (tongue in cheek) You're facts
> are probably all correct, I don't doubt them but, allot of Americans have
> been burned too many times by US automakers, to ever be 'fooled again' as
> they see it. The short sighted American mfr's have for too many years, used
> high quality marketing instead of high quality materials and instead of high
> quality R&D!
>
> To get these people back in their fold, they will have to build cars like
> you are describing this vehicle, for year after year, slowly convincing
> these people that they (the mfr) can again be trusted. Does Detroit have the
> cash or the patience or the fortitude to do this the 'right way'?
>
> That is to be seen and it is scary for American jobs. Thank goodness the
> foreign mfrs were coerced into building here if they want to sell here or,
> we'd be screwed!
>
> I'm rooting for America here, I haven't fully given up on them but they are
> going to have to buck the "American business model" of short sighted profit
> mongers. Is there any chance of that? I do not know.
I agree with your observations, Chris. I have owned Chevys, Buicks,
Fords, Triumphs, BMWs, Renaults, Datsuns, MGs, Mazdas, and more, and I
buy what I want based on the individual model, year, features, and my
own ability to deal with any problems that might crop up. I currently
own domestice and imported cars and motorcycles, and while I support
the U.S. economy whenever possible, no U.S. manufacturer is builidng
Miatas or Miata competitors right now, so I have a Mazda. But I know
people at work whose PARENTS had one bad experience with a Dodge Omni
or a Ford Tempo back in the 1970's or 1980's, and those people will
NEVER consider an American car. They are Honda or Toyota buyers for
life, regardless of the facts of the marketplace.
I once counted up all the cars and trucks I have owned in my 35 years
of driving, and the total is over 40. I have never once had a single
"lemon" or bad car. The 2001 BMW Z3 3.0i coupe that I bought
(coincidentally the most expensive car I've ever owned and the last
new car I bought) was probably the worst in terms of number of initial
problems and inability of the dealer network to fix (all under
warranty); the bottom of the line 1978 Renauly LeCar I owned (the
least expensive and first new car I ever bought) was better built and
used higher quality materials, but the difference wasn't that much.
Anyway, my Mom has a 2008 Toyota Camry 4-cylinder, and it's a nice
enough car, but it was outrageously expensive, and she keeps it
reliable by taking it to the dealer about every two months.
Meanwhile, my 2006 Chevy pick-up just gets its oil and filter changed
and has only revisted the dealer once in its lifetime.
Heck, I think I'd enjoy owning the 1959 Bel Air more than the 2009
Malibu, anyway!
pws
My parent's 1994 Camry has never been back to the dealership. My 1995
Honda Accord went in for service every 6 months until I received it this
month. Both cars have been extremely reliable.
The Accord, with 77,000 miles, is in a bit better shape than the Camry
with 164,000 miles.
Taking the 2008 Camry in every 2 months may help your mother's peace of
mind, but the Camry is a reliable car model with or without excessive
service/maintenance.
Yes, the Camrys are expensive, I agree.
Did you ever own a 1986 Ford LTD? That was a true lemon. The number of
things that went wrong with this car would take a while to type out. It
was owned by my parents, but I still ended up driving a 1990 Ford
Thunderbird SC that fell apart at a little over 100,000 miles, after
breaking 3 transmissions before it hit 90K.
It was not that many years back that I rented a Ford Mustang with 300
miles on it, a 2003 or maybe 2004 model.
That Mustang was an awful pig of a vehicle to drive, though it did not
break down, so I guess there was some improvement over the LTD and the
Thunderbird.
After watching my parent's Camry and many other imports easily go to
150K miles and beyond, I can not feel anything but contempt for the 2004
Impala that my neighbor bought and frequently took to the dealership for
warranty issues until it finally threw a rod, at 37K miles, and made it
back onto their lot, for some other sucker to buy, in less than 3 years.
The automotive sales numbers make a far stronger argument than either
one of us ever will.
Pat
Frank Berger
> Tim M. wrote:
>
>> I agree with your observations, Chris. I have owned Chevys, Buicks,
>> Fords, Triumphs, BMWs, Renaults, Datsuns, MGs, Mazdas, and more, and
>> I buy what I want based on the individual model, year, features, and
>> my own ability to deal with any problems that might crop up. I
>> currently own domestice and imported cars and motorcycles, and while
>> I support the U.S. economy whenever possible,
"Buying domestic" does not help "the U.S. economy." It helps the firm and
industry that makes the product, at the expense of firms and industries that
manufacture for export. So if you want to help GM by denying yourself a
better imported product, fine. But do not be under the delusion that it's
good for the economy. That is propoganda.
Lanny Chambers
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> "Buying domestic" does not help "the U.S. economy." It helps the firm and
> industry that makes the product, at the expense of firms and industries that
> manufacture for export. So if you want to help GM by denying yourself a
> better imported product, fine. But do not be under the delusion that it's
> good for the economy. That is propoganda.
Well, not completely. The workers who assemble domestic cars are fairly
likely to spend most of their pay locally. That helps keep bars,
casinos, and bowling alleys in business. Of course, this applies equally
to "foreign" models assembled in U.S. plants.
As a taxpayer, I want GM to succeed so I'll get some some return on my
involuntary "investment." But not enough to replace either of my Mazdas
with some lump of domestic coal.
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
Tim M.
> In article <-oqdndJozKtdp0vXnZ2dnUVZ_o6dn...@supernews.com>,
> "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> > "Buying domestic" does not help "the U.S. economy." It helps the firm and
> > industry that makes the product, at the expense of firms and industries that
> > manufacture for export. So if you want to help GM by denying yourself a
> > better imported product, fine. But do not be under the delusion that it's
> > good for the economy. That is propoganda.
>
> Well, not completely. The workers who assemble domestic cars are fairly
> likely to spend most of their pay locally. That helps keep bars,
> casinos, and bowling alleys in business. Of course, this applies equally
> to "foreign" models assembled in U.S. plants.
>
> As a taxpayer, I want GM to succeed so I'll get some some return on my
> involuntary "investment." But not enough to replace either of my Mazdas
> with some lump of domestic coal.
My sentiments exactly. That's why I have a Chevy pick-up and a Mazda
Miata, a Harley touring bike and Ducati sportbikes. The moment
Harley builds a better sportbike than Ducati, I will buy one. The
moment Chevy builds a better lightweight sportscar than the Miata,
I'll buy one. If only Chevy could apply the world class formula they
have in the Corvette to a 7/8's or 3/4 scale Solstice/Sky, then I
could enjoy one of those!
Since my 401(k) and that of many, many other Americans typically holds
more domestic stocks than foreign stocks, obviously buying U.S.
products and keeping U.S. companies healthy (not to mention preventing
things like the stimulus package in the first place) helps our
country. That's not propaganda, but assuming that any imported
product is better than any GM product is propaganda, pure and simple.
pws
If only Chevy could apply the world class formula they
> have in the Corvette to a 7/8's or 3/4 scale Solstice/Sky, then I
> could enjoy one of those!
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata/2005-12/msg00066.html
Pat
Iva
>
>I want a 1959 Chevy El Camino (based on the Bel Air chassis) but
>modified like this:
>
>http://www.truckinweb.com/features/0806tr_1959_chevy_el_camino/photo_05.html
>
But does it have a HUGE TAK?
Iva & Vixen
(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
2004 Classic Red
No more winkin' Miata
Tim M.
> Tim M. wrote:
>
> If only Chevy could apply the world class formula they
>
> > have in the Corvette to a 7/8's or 3/4 scale Solstice/Sky, then I
> > could enjoy one of those!
>
>
> Pat
I've driven and have friends who own Corvettes as both daily drivers
and track cars, as well as a good, close friend who has raced both
Corvettes and Miatas, and my experiences with them have been nothing
like that particular description. The current Corvette is very
light, very agile, as well as stunningly fast, incredible handling,
and has great brakes that are completely up to the task of slowing the
car on both the road and at the track. Definitely a world class car
in every respect.
Likewise, I've had nothing but stellar experiences with Chevy dealers
in the last 10 years, and of all the Chevy vehicles I've owned in the
last 10 years, I've had exactly one problem, which was taken care of
in one visit to the dealer, under warranty.
So, while I love my current Miata (and am enjoying it more each day,
which I find hard to believe considering how much it is already making
me smile) and I loved my '92 Miata (which is still my oldest son's
daily driver to this day) and I love cheering on my middle son racing
his '90 Miata (and if I go back to racing, it will almost 100%
certainly be in a Miata), I will continue to keep my eyes and ears
open for other cars (trucks, motorcycles) by other manufacturers,
foreign or domestic, that fit my needs and desires, and if the vehicle
seems right to me, I'll buy it and take my chances that it, too, will
make me as happy as my other choices have in the past. Heck, I might
even someday buy another BMW, even though the one that I owned was the
worst built car I've ever ownedf and had the most problems of any new
car I ever bought, and causedf me to have to do business with the
worst (three different) automobile dealers I've ever dealt with!
Right now, I'm looking forward to test driving an Abarth Fiat 500 as
soon as Chrysler/Fiat brings them to the U.S. next year!
Chris D'Agnolo
interesting enough vehicle to entice you ;-) You know when Michael
Schumacher was on Top Gear, he said that's his daily driver (when he's not
driving the kids around in the 'estate')
Chris
99BBB
pws
I am glad that you have had such good luck with domestic vehicles. If my
luck with them was half as good as what you report, I might also
consider buying another one.
My life experience is that American vehicles are poorly-made products
that are generally beaten, and beaten badly, by the Japanese competition.
At the risk of repeating myself, the automotive sales numbers make a far
stronger argument than either one of us ever will.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/06/07/top_selling_us_cars/
Pat
pws
> But does it have a HUGE TAK?
>
> Iva & Vixen
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
> 2004 Classic Red
> No more winkin' Miata
What qualifies as a "HUGE TAK!"?
I saw one that was 5 inches across at Autozone, but that seems
medium-sized at best.
If anyone has a TAK! that is more HUGE than 5 inches, I want to see it,
and probably, to buy it to install in my Miata.
The legend of the HUGE TAK! Miata shall never die..........That car was
"fast, fast, & yup, ferious!", according to the ad. :-)
Pat
Lanny Chambers
wrote:
> That car was
> "fast, fast, & yup, ferious!", according to the ad.
He obviously misspelled "ferrous."
Are you sure the car didn't actually have a HUGH TAK?
Chris D'Agnolo
the past, right up till now!
Couple thoughts, with all those years of so many Americans buying shitty
American cars (Chevettes and Citations and such) how could you NOT have a
populace with a lingering bad taste in their mouth! They were selling shitty
cars to Americans who were buying them in great part, solely on the
Nationalistic view that it was good for America. Honestly, it would have
been better for America in the long run to realize (earlier) that the best
way to sell a shit load of cars is to build great cars, not to wrap them in
the flag like GM and the others did for so long! That's what I call (sadly)
good marketing in place of good product!
What fun to see the battle displayed like that! Reminds me of when the
Taurus was a great car. I owned one that first year in 1986 and loved it. It
had it's (American) flaws (cheap interior with mediocre ergonomics) but, it
had the look of the future!
Thanks Pat.
Chris
99BBB
"pws" <pwsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hb9tkm$f5f$1...@aioe.org...
Tim M.
> That's a very interesting (and insightful) look at the automotive history of
> the past, right up till now!
>
> Couple thoughts, with all those years of so many Americans buying shitty
> American cars (Chevettes and Citations and such) how could you NOT have a
> populace with a lingering bad taste in their mouth! They were selling shitty
> cars to Americans who were buying them in great part, solely on the
> Nationalistic view that it was good for America. Honestly, it would have
> been better for America in the long run to realize (earlier) that the best
> way to sell a shit load of cars is to build great cars, not to wrap them in
> the flag like GM and the others did for so long! That's what I call (sadly)
> good marketing in place of good product!
>
> What fun to see the battle displayed like that! Reminds me of when the
> Taurus was a great car. I owned one that first year in 1986 and loved it. It
> had it's (American) flaws (cheap interior with mediocre ergonomics) but, it
> had the look of the future!
The "bad" American cars I owned ranged from 1974 to 1985 and ended
abruptly right there. Even the "bad" ones were totally reliable and
inexpensive to own and operate. They were bad because Detroit was
reeling; trying to accomodate unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, 5-
mph bumper laws, and low compression engines all at once.
I remember Toyota and Honda owners who predicted all sorts of dire
consequences for me when I bought my brand new, first year of
production, 1988 Chevy Beretta 2.8L GT. I owned it for 75,000 miles
before my kids got too big for the back seat and sold it to buy a used
1987 Ford Taurus station wagon. The Beretta required one set of
tires and a $12 Trak Auto water pump during my ownership of it. Well
made? Well, it didn't have a rattle or a creak when I sold it. I
bought the Taurus with 59,000 miles on it and we sold it for $1,500
less than I paid for it seven years later, with 129,000 miles on it.
During that 70,000 miles, in addition to a set of tires, it required a
set of front brake pads, the front brake rotors were turned once, and
I put a $33 rebuilt alternator in it. So, I've enjoyed the recovery
of the American car manufacturers and their products since they
started making quality products again (for less than the imports, too)
24 or 25 years ago. Just waiting for the facts to catch up to the
popular media and the average American on the street.
There is one good thing about the general disdain and distaste that
Americans have for American cars, though. It allows people like my 20-
year-old college student daughter to buy a 2-year-old off-lease
Cadillac CTS-V with 17,000 miles on it, a 406 hp all aluminum V8, a 6-
speed manual transmission, independent rear suspension, four huge disk
brakes, butter soft leather interior, for less than 50% of its
original MSRP in 2007, with a full warranty as a GM certified used
car, all on a part-time Karate instructor's pay. Even used, even
three years old now, even with another 13,000 miles on it, she hasn't
yet had a single thing go wrong with it. It's kind of the opposite of
my experience with my BMW Z3 3.0i Coupe, which I bought new and then
spent over nine trips to various dealers trying to get it to run
properly before giving up after 17 months and dumping it.
Of course, when all the American car companies are out of business,
there will be no more bargains like that to be had. It will be
interesting to see what Americans think of paying world prices for
their import and captive import cars when the domestic competition is
gone.
(Oh, and I had a used Chevy Citation X11 that was far from a terrible
car, either. Bought it from a guy going overseas for $10 (yes, $10)
because it wouldn't pass emissions or safety inspections in Virginia,
even though it only had 90,000 miles on it. Replaced the air
injection tubing on the exhaust manifold where one 90-degree bend had
rusted through, and put an aftermarket muffler on it to replace the
rusted out original, 15-year-old item, buffed out the faded paint,
passed both inspections easily, and sold it for $650 with one weekend
on display at my local supermarket parking lot. Yeah, that one had a
rattle or two. Just AWFUL!)
Lanny Chambers
<a65b3f8f-62a3-4aa1...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "bad" American cars I owned ranged from 1974 to 1985 and ended
> abruptly right there. Even the "bad" ones were totally reliable and
> inexpensive to own and operate. They were bad because Detroit was
> reeling; trying to accomodate unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, 5-
> mph bumper laws, and low compression engines all at once.
Foreign manufacturers had to comply with the same regs if they wanted to
sell cars here. But instead of wasting time and money lobbying against
the law, they put it into engineering and were ready, for the most part.
In particular, domestic car companies resisted making good small cars
until their opportunity was lost, skimping on quality and features on
the assumption that everyone bought cars by the pound. They were wrong,
and by the time--decades later--that they realized their mistake, it was
too late. And they STILL don't make good small cars, just cheap ones.
Reliable and inexpensive aren't the only characteristics of good cars.
American car design has always been gross--huge, garish splashes of
chrome instead of restrained style, interiors that look like they came
out of either army trucks or whorehouses, enormous panel gaps, terrible
seats, miserable handling and brakes. No finesse. The American public at
large didn't, until Japanese cars, know there was an alternative. But
it's why American cars have never sold well in Europe: they're seen as
ill-conceived junk thrown together by monkeys, not something one would
want to spend a proportionately-higher fraction of one's annual income
to buy.
Even the current Corvette, with its stunning performance, is cheaply
built. Floppy, flimsy plastic bumpers, hard plastic inside, outsized
styling details--they're clown cars to the rest of the world, where the
market hasn't been brainwashed into wanting a truck with a massive
chrome grille.
NetMax
I remember the early Honda cars & motorcycles (late 60s early 70s).
They were far from what you would call well designed or engineering
vehicles. I think their sales were mostly fueled by novelty, and the
reviewers took them to task.
At this point a company's choices might be to leave the market, put
serious money into Advertising, Marketing-Research or into
Engineering. Honda appeared to throw everything into Marketing-
Research, listening to everything the reviewers and surveys told them,
then into Engineering to redesign & build it, and then into
Advertising. In the short span of 2-3 years, they were producing
vehicles with the features & reliability people had asked for.
They succeeded partly because their products were so bad. They didn't
have the confidence to sell us their vision, and completely adopted
the vision they were given. An example of the opposite extreme
(unfortunately an American company) is H-D, which has a very strong
and unwavering vision of what a consumer wants for a motorcycle, so
their money goes into advertising and marketing.
Regardless of nationality, all companies move around between those
extremes. _Generally_ speaking, my opinion is that more Asian
companies have followed Honda's lead for design & reliability,
followed by more European companies who have good design but are still
struggling with reliability. More American companies are good at
selling.
Speaking of selling, every Mazda newspaper ad I've seen, did NOT show
the MX-5. There must be a mathematical formula for this (diminishing
returns). As a product reaches a certain stature (in reliability,
function, common knowledge etc), the sales benefit for the advertising
expense is incrementally smaller. Off hand, I can't think of any
other vehicle (American or otherwise) which was left out of a
manufacturer's advertising line up. Either everything is listed (ie:
Chevy), or nothing is listed (ie: Ferrari).
Net
Chuck
straight six that was a large chunk of metal that should have gone through
the firewall on the 09.
As I remember, the 59 had a "bullet" in the center of the steering wheel
that would have crushed the drivers chest.
We will likely never buy another GM car again. Too many problems with new
ones, poor factory reps, etc.
I will not go into a litany of all the problems over the years. It is or was
true that when you happened to get a GM car that was actually built properly
(labor) with good parts, it was a good car, and would last. Example 76 Buick
Regal, 14 years. Never could fix a thumping rattle -- turned out to be the
flapper doors in the heater.
A better test would have been to use a 57 Buick Century instead of the
Chevy. The 57 was a tank. I hit a Ford Falcon almost head on with one in the
middle 60's. No contest.
The Buick was driveable, and I was uninjured. The Falcon was not even
towable, and had to be trailered. The Falcon driver was knocked out, and had
broken her hand.
The "old" GM is now all but history. It will be interesting to see if the
new GM can overcome all the hate and discontent left over from the old GM.
"Christopher Muto" <mu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:p4idna15mu8E6E7X...@speakeasy.net...
> "pws" <pwsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:havdc7$1c9$1...@aioe.org...
>> Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
>>> Good for you Tim! Thanks for the direct link. Mr. XS11E must not have
>>> watched many crash test videos. I've watched allot of them (they are
>>> hugely interesting to see which vehicles do better and which do worse)
>>> and never even crossed my mind that this could have been faked and I'm
>>> one of those 'conspiracy theorists'
>>>
>>> Chris
>>> 99BBB
>>
>> Here is another video that shows the inside of the cars, and the effects
>> on the crash test dummies during the crash.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I
>>
>> Nice interior on the Bel Air, it looks like they wasted a nicely restored
>> classic car for this test.
>>
>> Pat
>
> The comments under that video are priceless!
> Funny:
> "that will buff right out"
> "I was hoping the 59' would eat? the 09' and crap out something better
> looking."
> Interesting:
> "It appears that there is no engine or tranny in the engine compartment.
> That makes the test suspect and dishonest if that is the? case."
> "I was a volunteer fireman at the site of a head-on collision. Both cars
> were heavily damaged. One was a new 1998 Lumina. The other was a 1972
> Caprice (exact? same frame as 68 Impala).The two Lumina passengers had
> severe but non-life threating injuries. In the Caprice were three dead
> teenagers all wearing their seat belts!"
> and they go on and on...
>
>
>
Chuck
buckle that happens when the engine is pushed back into the firewall. The
video also showed that a six cyl engine would likely have been to the side
of the original contact area. I'm surprised that it didn't go foreward.
"Chuck" <cdkn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oOyCm.16390$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
Squat
>I agree with your observations, Chris. I have owned Chevys, Buicks,
>Fords, Triumphs, BMWs, Renaults, Datsuns, MGs, Mazdas, and more, and I
>buy what I want based on the individual model, year, features, and my
>own ability to deal with any problems that might crop up. I currently
>own domestice and imported cars and motorcycles, and while I support
>the U.S. economy whenever possible, no U.S. manufacturer is builidng
>Miatas or Miata competitors right now, so I have a Mazda. But I know
>people at work whose PARENTS had one bad experience with a Dodge Omni
>or a Ford Tempo back in the 1970's or 1980's, and those people will
>NEVER consider an American car. They are Honda or Toyota buyers for
>life, regardless of the facts of the marketplace.
Oh god, I owned a dodge Omni 024. What a horrible, piece of shit car.
Yes, that was the last straw for me, I have never purchased an American made
car since. Traded that for a Mazda pickup that went over 100k without a
hitch.
I spent more time fixing that Omni than driving it. From the world's worst
shifter linkage to door handles that broke and left standing outside a
locked car.. (Yes, I had to crawl in from the passenger side most of the
time since the drivers door handle was usually broken. ) I'll look at US
made cars at the autoshow but I'd never lay down money for one of them.
Squat
Tim M.
> > I know
> >people at work whose PARENTS had one bad experience with a Dodge Omni
> >or a Ford Tempo back in the 1970's or 1980's, and those people will
> >NEVER consider an American car. They are Honda or Toyota buyers for
> >life, regardless of the facts of the marketplace.
>
> Oh god, I owned a dodge Omni 024. What a horrible, piece of shit car.
> Yes, that was the last straw for me, I have never purchased an American made
> car since. Traded that for a Mazda pickup that went over 100k without a
> hitch.
> I spent more time fixing that Omni than driving it. From the world's worst
> shifter linkage to door handles that broke and left standing outside a
> locked car.. (Yes, I had to crawl in from the passenger side most of the
> time since the drivers door handle was usually broken. ) I'll look at US
> made cars at the autoshow but I'd never lay down money for one of them.
Thank-you for perfectly illustrating my point!
XS11E
> Oh god, I owned a dodge Omni 024. What a horrible, piece of shit
> car.
You say that only because you never owned a Pontiac Grand Am of the
early '90s. One of our customers bought a fleet of them for their
salespeople and I could not believe the problems! It made the Dodge
Omni look like a pretty good car.
Ever hit a bump and have the grill fall off?
Me
"kaizen"
Mx5 Na/Nb/Nc with intermediate steps is an example.
Japanese do this with production. Big mistake that US and many other
manufacturers make when they're behind is the opposite - they try to
reinvent the wheel.
By the early 70s, /good/ japanese cars were arriving here (NZ). Not
"revolutionary" in design, but certainly revolutionary in execution. It
was a massive revolution when maintenance was reduced to
tyres/wheels/batteries/oil changes, and the occasional blown light bulb.
Squat
>
> Ever hit a bump and have the grill fall off?
>
LOL, No can't say that that ever happened. The 024 just sounded like stuff
was going to fall off while I drove it.
It's funny, I used to give US car makers the benefit of the doubt until I
bought an old, 2nd gen RX7 that had been run pretty hard. I bought it cheap
when I moved tot eh east coast and didn't want to spend much a car that I
was only going to keep for a year or so. This old RX7 had 75k miles or so
on it. We're talking cigarette burns, and all. I bought it for $1200 and
drove it for a year. all in all, it was a better car than any US made car
that I have ever owned.
I worked for National Car rental while in college. They used mostly GM cars,
Kept their mechanics quite busy...
pws
> The "old" GM is now all but history.
Since what year? GM was still making cars that are just awful
monstrosities at least as late as 2004, and I doubt if that was the last
year of crap production.
Are you talking about a change of maybe 2 or 3 years?
> It will be interesting to see if the new GM can overcome all the hate and discontent left over from the old GM.
I doubt it, and I didn't really hate GM until the undeserved bailout, I
simply avoided buying their inferior products.
Fat, lazy Americans make shitty cars, it is pretty simple.
Pat
pws
> Thank-you for perfectly illustrating my point!
How did he illustrate your point?
You claimed, and I quote, "I know people at work whose PARENTS had one
bad experience with a Dodge Omni or a Ford Tempo back in the 1970's or
1980's, and those people will NEVER consider an American car."
This was not his parent's Omni that he is talking about, it was his own,
so it actually does not illustrate your point in any way at all.
You are starting to stand very alone here in defending the pure shit
vehicles that Detroit has been producing, and is still producing today.
All it takes is a little common sense not to buy these awful cars.
Pat
pws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI0hj5QXoA8&feature=related
Pat
pws
> You say that only because you never owned a Pontiac Grand Am of the
> early '90s. One of our customers bought a fleet of them for their
> salespeople and I could not believe the problems! It made the Dodge
> Omni look like a pretty good car.
>
> Ever hit a bump and have the grill fall off?
The Pontiacs were/are awful. The early 1990's was Pontiac's time of
perhaps the most hideous external plastic application ever seen on
production cars, but......we should not think that they are shit
vehicles, because that is all propaganda, not our personal experience or
anything.
Also consider the 1986 Ford LTD, as no worse car was ever made.
Without joking, I saw one that simultaneously had all 4 of the electric
windows inoperable, with a heater that would not turn off, during the
summer in Texas.
If Japan had ever produced such a complete hunk of crap as that LTD
during my lifetime, I would have a different opinion on their vehicles.
If America had put a just a tiny bit of effort into reducing the shit
production, then again, I a might have a different take on American
cars, and maybe even a better attitude about American people.
Pat
Tim M.
Actually, I started out by defending a single American car - the
current Chevy Malibu, that was characterized as "junk" and
"pathetic." Nor do I think it is an awful car, nor do I think that
"common sense" is what people are using when they choose cars,
certainly not for the most part.
Regardless, that defense seemingly opened the door to open season on
American cars and the history of American cars in general.
I simply have a different viewpoint than many other Miata owners in
this regard, and while folks are certainly entitled to their
viewpoint, I have owned (and worked on) enough foreign and U.S cars
personally to be comfortable in my viewpoint that the criticisms of
American cars are vastly overblown in the mind of the public, and that
the reputations of certain Japanese manufacturers are equally
overblown.
I never stopped buying American cars, and I never stopped buying
Japanese or European cars when they fit my needs, so I have a pretty
well rounded background of experience to go on, a background I'm sure
I'll continue to rely on - as well as magazine road tests and JD
Powers and other quality sureveys as well as friends and family's
inputs, and yes - even enthusiasts groups like this one's inputs -
when it comes time to buy vehicles in the future.
What I won't do is say "I'll never buy another vehicle from X
manufacturer" because of a single - or even a couple - of bad personal
experiences with a previous make or model of that manufacturer's
vehicles. I just won't. I'm going to take each car, or motorcycle,
on its own merits and how well it matches my needs, and I'm not going
to eliminate ANY vehicle that might put a smile on my face just
because of who made it or where it was made.
Finally, back to the original point? 30 years have passed since
Squat's Dodge Omni 024 was built. That's a full generation,
regardless of whether he owned it or his parents owned it. So even
though he owned it, it is still a lousy comparison point for deciding
what to buy now. It would be no more useful for me to say "Wow, my
Mom's 1981 Dodge Omni 4-door automatic spent less time at the dealer
being repaired than did either my 1983 VW GTI or my wife's 1984 VW
Jetta GLI, and it cost less, so I am going to buy a 2010 Chrysler
Sebring instead of a 2010 VW R32."
Now if he simply said "I don't care whether Dodge builds any quality
cars now or not, I'm going to continue to punish the company for the
rest of my life by withholding my consumer dollars because of the one
bad car I bought from them 30 years ago," that's different. I
understand that. I understand consumer rage and disappointment. I
won't patronize my local cable company because of a consumer service
dispute with them that occurred 20 years ago; I use a satellite TV
company because of that, and I don't even compare prices or quality
because that particular company simply isn't going to derive any
economic benefit from my consumer dollars. If they provided better
quality service for less mony than the satellite company, (for all I
know, they might!) it wouldn't change my mind. But I don't assume
that they are still doing to others what they did to me 20 years ago,
either. (otoh, for all I know, they might!)
I was pointing out that such sentiments lead to things like children
never considering a consumer item their parents once bought, simply
because of the strength of emotion behind them.
But I won't disown my children if they buy Toyotas or if they
patronize the local cable company....
Tim M.
> Fat, lazy Americans make shitty cars, it is pretty simple.
Aren't most Toyotas and Hondas and BMWs sold in the U.S. built by
Americans? I was under the impression that that was quite a point of
pride among both the companies that advetise that fact and the owners
of cars built by those companies.
pws
> Aren't most Toyotas and Hondas and BMWs sold in the U.S. built by
> Americans? I was under the impression that that was quite a point of
> pride among both the companies that advetise that fact and the owners
> of cars built by those companies.
Built, yes. Made, no.
Give me the tools and a little training and I can put almost any car
together, especially if it is just specific parts of the assembly
process on an assembly line.
Ask me to design a good car, however, and big trouble will occur.
Pat
pws
Ahhhh, I understand. We may not agree on the domestic car issue, but
that is OK, we are all just a bunch of Miata nuts here anyway. :-)
Good luck to your son as well, whatever make of car he may be working
with at any given time. :-)
Pat
Christopher Muto
undermined their own purpose and are the major reason why gm and chrysler
are where they are today. because the uaw managed to achieve so many
benefits the american automakers were simply not competing on the same level
as the foreign automakers. because of the burden of labor expense on each
car produced they had to cut costs in other ways to stay competitive. the
result was obvious and history was written. the american automakers have
been trying to negotiate their way out of the this burden over the last few
years, doing things like shifting the pension plans over to the unions, but
it is the recent collapse that has allowed the major us automakers to
renegotiate the union contracts that may actually help these people keep
their jobs. can't blame them for trying to negotiate their best possible
compensation but when it was obviously hurting the health of the company it
just seems greedy and shortsighted that they kept asking for more. of
course there is more to this story but in a nutshell that is my sense of it.
"Tim M." <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84de3cb2-124e-48e5...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Chris D'Agnolo
brother) and (both of us) had very good fortune with that car. To be honest
I was still young and stupid, in that I had more money than sense, and I
traded it in after a couple years on something newer / hotter. Maybe that's
why I didn't have issues with it but in the first couple years it was pretty
much bullet proof as far as I remember. YMMV ;-)
Keep in mind that you're saying you've given up on all domestic cars because
of an experience in the 80's ! I don't know about that.
Chris
99BBB
"Squat" <sq...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7MPCm.45517$Jp1....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
Chris D'Agnolo
I love it!
Chris
99BBB
"pws" <pwsh...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hbiu79$vkk$1...@aioe.org...
Chris D'Agnolo
simplifies the issue hugely and takes pretty much the standard 'corporate'
mentality vision. Again, I don't argue that the Labor Unions did some bad
stuff when they were the holder of the 'big stick' (as I like to put it) but
believe me, the companies returned the favor when the stick traded hands
occasionally. I think a greater portion of the blame has to go to
management. Too many bean counters put in charge and a 'quick profits to the
shareholders' mentality are more the culprit, I think. Short sightedness is
what has so badly wounded the domestic car makers. If the whole problem was
the horribly expensive labor and pensions over the years, how was GM able to
price it's cars below the Japanese carmakers? Even the lower prices couldn't
sell them in sufficient volumes because they had sold too many of their
customers a false bill of goods for too long.
I think it's great that Tim has had such good fortune with American
vehicles. I too have had quite good fortune with the ones I've owned and so,
I have also not written the domestics 'off'. But, I know that I was too
close to the exception to the rule, to jump back into an American car w/o
seeing some (at least medium term) seriously improved results. If the
domestics continue to be built better and better, I think they can regain
their previous stature but it won't be easy or quick and corporate America
does not have much in the way of patience.
Chris
99BBB
"Christopher Muto" <mu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2fednQhBttwAlkDX...@speakeasy.net...
Squat
Tim,
Keep in mind that cars are something that you keep for a very long time
(hopefully).
We don't change them often so as children, we see how our parents cars
performed and that influences our decisions as adults. I have based my
current car decisions on the reliability of the vehicle. since I have owned
enough crap cars that I will buy something "un-cool" if it is reliable and
dependable.
The three best that I have owned have been Mazda's. I have seen an early
80's Toyota Corolla perform remarkably well after abusive treatment by a
freidn of mine. I have a buddy that has driven 200k miles on a Honda Accord.
True, These are not pure, statistical samples but as consumers, we go with
the info that we have available. We could read consumer reports but they
don't go out and randomly test 30 used cars of each make/model and drive
them on a daily basis to see what breaks and what survives.
Not all US cars are crap and not ALL Japanese cars are bullet proof.
However, I'd bet my money that a random sample of 10 - 5yr old
Honda/Toyota/Mazda cars would be in better shape than 10 -
Ford/Chevy/Chrysler. Seeing how American consumers are buying foreign cars
and not purchasing Us cars, I seem to be in the majority.
In a way, this pisses me off, Many fine "Foreign" cars are built right here
in the US. This tells me that it is not a UAW problem but an
engineering/marketing problem. My favorite cars at the last Auto show were
the Ford Mustang and the Ford Full size pickup. However, If I could buy a
car these days, it would probably be a Miata or a Mazda 3 wagon with the
performance option. (The Scion xB is kinda cool. I have rented them and like
the vehicle.)
Cheers and happy cruising!
Squat
johnny p.
employers, offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Look
at this chart
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
and see what kind of comparative disadvantage this imposes on Detroit.
(Also note that the data come from 2003; the disparity between the U.S.
and the rest of the world has grown ebven worse since then.)
The per capita expenditure on health for the U.S. in 2003 was $6,711 and
all American car manufacturers - in fact, all American businesses which
provide health insurance as part of their employee benefits - paid
proportionally. Meanwhile in Germany it was $2,983; in Japan, $2,249,
and in France, which has what is regarded as the best health care on the
planet, $3,048. Less than half for comparable or superior health care!
Less than half!
The difference, of course, is that in these countries the citizens,
through their governments, actually regulate the health care system for
their benefit, whereas in the U.S. the insurance companies control
health care in order to maximize their own profits. It's as though we
had decided to privatize the roads, and there was a toll booth every
five miles up and down every highway. The toll booth operators would be
rolling in dough, and the rest of the country would grind to a halt.
Instead of worrying about what the UAW does for its members and how can
we reduce their benefits to third-world levels, Americans should focus
on restraining the out-of-control costs of health care for all
citizens. We should start by dragging all those parasitical health
insurance companies into the nearest ditch and shooting them in the
head.
yrs WDK
Tim M.
(public service bandwidth snip)
> Cheers and happy cruising!
Thanks, and thanks for the friendy response!
Tim
Christopher Muto
reads your post.
"johnny p." <stel...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:4ADD96B6...@butterfly.net...
pws
> Thank God, maybe Pat is mellowing out just a touch in his old age ;-)
> I love it!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
Hey, frak off Chris! (Oh shit, I just showed my Battlestar Galactica
geekiness)
Mellow my ass............. ;-)
Pat - 47 days to age 40, and hating it..........
XS11E
> Pat - 47 days to age 40, and hating it..........
I was 40, it didn't hurt a bit!
Tim M.
Relax, 40 is the new 25!!! (which leaves me theoretically at the new
32.......) ;-)
Chris D'Agnolo
is pro-business. Problem is SOME business don't agree (the for profit
insurance companies) and they're spending the lobbying cash like it is
water! Fueling re-election campaigns far and wide!
Wow, how many ways can we travel off topic in this one thread ;-)
Chris
99BBB
"Christopher Muto" <mu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ha6dnW4jpeWSu0PX...@speakeasy.net...
Tim M.
Personally, I think health insurance should be outlawed. Yep.
Mandatory, CATASTROPHIC health coverage should be the norm, where you
can't lose your livelihood, your home, your retirement, your life
savings, or your children's college savings due to sickness, disease,
or accident. Those who can't afford the premiums for such should get
a tax credit (not deduction; credit) for the cost of the premium.
Public option, sure. For regular, routine, everyday health care,
return the costs to the user and let THEM put pressure on the health
care providers to control costs at the point of purchase, just as they
do with other consumer goods and services. Remove the income
percentage rule on health care tax DEDUCTIONS, and let everyone deduct
the actual cost of their health spending from their income. Give
lower income families a tax credit for annual health care spending,
and get the insurance companies and their legions of claims denying
paper pushers (and their overhead costs and profits) out of our health
care decisions.
But no one in a million years would go for the above!
Lanny Chambers
<094bba73-c91b-4e4d...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Those who can't afford the premiums for such should get
> a tax credit (not deduction; credit) for the cost of the premium.
But that won't help folks who don't make enough to owe taxes, unless it
gets added to their withholding refunds. You might be surprised how much
you can make without owing taxes, due to certain deductions. It could be
as much as double the official "poverty" level--not dirt-poor, but still
having to make careful choices, and unable to afford $1000/month for
insurance.
Current high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans are predatory
rip-offs. It can be difficult to get them to pay for *anything*. The
automatic initial response these days is to deny any claim, and make you
appeal the ruling. Policies are deliberately written in weasel language
to suggest one thing, then you're told you misinterpreted the plan and
your claim is not covered.
All insurance companies blow dead rats.
Tim M.
> "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Those who can't afford the premiums for such should get
> > a tax credit (not deduction; credit) for the cost of the premium.
>
> But that won't help folks who don't make enough to owe taxes, unless it
> gets added to their withholding refunds. You might be surprised how much
> you can make without owing taxes, due to certain deductions. It could be
> as much as double the official "poverty" level--not dirt-poor, but still
> having to make careful choices, and unable to afford $1000/month for
> insurance.
Yeah, that's why I said a tax credit, not a deduction. As I
understand it, many poverty-level family heads not only don't pay anyt
taxes, they still get tax refunds. If they're not paying taxes,
they're get a larger refund. That in effect *becomes* the income
needed for the insurance.
> Current high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans are predatory
> rip-offs. It can be difficult to get them to pay for *anything*. The
> automatic initial response these days is to deny any claim, and make you
> appeal the ruling. Policies are deliberately written in weasel language
> to suggest one thing, then you're told you misinterpreted the plan and
> your claim is not covered.
Right, that's what they do with regular medical insurance as well.
So, get rid of the regular insurance entirely, add a public option for
the catastrophic coverage (so that the private companies have to
compete) and lower the overall incidence of insurance bullshit by
about 95% in one fell swoop.
> All insurance companies blow dead rats.
No arguments there; I just had to send off a letter at lunch to the
state insurance commissioner - my insurance company has chosen to
simply ignore my claim for the final disposition on my Miata - not
deny it, not negotiate it, just IGNORE it. And while it is not the
first claim ever, it is only the third claim in 27 years with the same
company, which has covered cars for my entire family of five during
that period. Pretty shitty behavior.