A Reeky clubhouse IRL
Sean_Q_
for a Reeky HQ. (I really like the castle).
http://www.robotnine.com/2009/10/abandoned-houses-of-detroit.html
SQ
TOG@Toil
> Let's all chip in and buy one of these 50 fix'r'uppers in Detroit
> for a Reeky HQ. (I really like the castle).http://www.robotnine.com/2009/10/abandoned-houses-of-detroit.html
>
are/were wonderful. What a waste. Reminded me of Robert Frost's poem
'Directive'.
83LowRider
"Sean_Q_" wrote
> Let's all chip in and buy one of these 50 fix'r'uppers in Detroit
> for a Reeky HQ. (I really like the castle).
> http://www.robotnine.com/2009/10/abandoned-houses-of-detroit.html
>
On the auction block in Detroit: almost 9,000 homes and lots in various
states of abandonment and decay from the tidy owner-occupied to the
burned-out shell claimed by squatters.
Despite a minimum bid of $500, less than a fifth of the Detroit land was
sold after four days.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc03/idUSTRE59O17F20091026
sleazy
What they fail to point out is the extremely high real estate tax in
the city. Friends have a nicer place over in one of the historic
districts and they pay nearly $10k a year in property taxes. The
school system has failed so badly and are so unsafe, they sent their
kids to a local private school, tacking another $15k a year onto that.
The historic district has hired a private security firm to patrol, due
to the fact the Detroit PD sucks so bad. Minimum response time is
down to 45 minutes for a priority call. Have your house broken into?
Call in the report yourself, if you can get someone to take it.
I work in the city and they nail my pay at 1.5% for the "privilege".
We've had at least 8 cars stolen out of the store lot in the past year.
Detroit needs to be bulldozed, used as a target range for our military
or just be pushed into the Detroit River and let nature take it's
course in restoring it to a nature preserve.
--
sleazy
2001 BMW R1150GS
1988 Honda XR600R
1996 Triumph Daytona 1200
TOG@Toil
> What they fail to point out is the extremely high real estate tax in
> the city. Friends have a nicer place over in one of the historic
> districts and they pay nearly $10k a year in property taxes. The
> school system has failed so badly and are so unsafe, they sent their
> kids to a local private school, tacking another $15k a year onto that.
> The historic district has hired a private security firm to patrol, due
> to the fact the Detroit PD sucks so bad. Minimum response time is
> down to 45 minutes for a priority call. Have your house broken into?
> Call in the report yourself, if you can get someone to take it.
>
> I work in the city and they nail my pay at 1.5% for the "privilege".
> We've had at least 8 cars stolen out of the store lot in the past year.
> Detroit needs to be bulldozed, used as a target range for our military
> or just be pushed into the Detroit River and let nature take it's
> course in restoring it to a nature preserve.
>
I had no idea it was as bad as that. Interestingly, there have been
news reports here of British buyers at some of these auctions of
abandoned homes. They seem to take the attitude: "It's only a few
thousand dollars and, hey, the land might be worth something one
day..."
Is there *any* motor industry left in Detroit?
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Hey ! 'Move-in condition' !
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Tim
> Is there *any* motor industry left in Detroit?
Nope. Americans sneer at anything "Detroit-produced" the way they
sneered at anything Japanese in the 1950's and 1960's. Americans will
continue to sneer until there is no American industry at all.
TOG@Toil
*Shrug*. If an industry can't produce well-made competitive products,
it deserves what it gets. American cars are singularly unsuccessful in
most export markets (cars made by their foreign subsidiaries are a
different matter, mind) and Japanese cars, um, aren't.
I don't know much about US cars, actually, so educate me. What marques
and models are worth buying, and why? Let's leave aside the gas-
guzzling trucks, niche market musclecars (I'd love a modern Mustang or
'Vette) and SUVs and concentrate on mainstream cars.
Tim
wrote:
> On 25 Nov, 15:03, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:11 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Is there *any* motor industry left in Detroit?
>
> > Nope. Americans sneer at anything "Detroit-produced" the way they
> > sneered at anything Japanese in the 1950's and 1960's. Americans will
> > continue to sneer until there is no American industry at all.
>
> *Shrug*. If an industry can't produce well-made competitive products,
> it deserves what it gets.
Agreed. of course, that doesn't apply to American industry in
general or the American car industry in particular.
> American cars are singularly unsuccessful in
> most export markets (cars made by their foreign subsidiaries are a
> different matter, mind) and Japanese cars, um, aren't.
If you are familiar with the history of the world automotive market,
you know that the U.S. has never made any particular effort to export
domestic U.S. automotive products to other markets, specifically
because it knew that what Americans wanted and needed in an automobile
has traditionally been something very different from what Europeans
and Australians and Asians wanted and needed in an automobile.
And you know, of course, that the U.S automobile giants invested in
European and Australian arms (Opel, Holden for GM and Ford Europe and
Ford Australia) that were quite successful in competing in their
respective markets, while of course not being anywhere near as
monolithic as they were in the domestic U.S. market.
> I don't know much about US cars, actually, so educate me. What marques
> and models are worth buying, and why? Let's leave aside the gas-
> guzzling trucks, niche market musclecars (I'd love a modern Mustang or
> 'Vette) and SUVs and concentrate on mainstream cars.
There's not a domestic marque or model that I wouldn't consider if I
were in the market. Hell, well over a decade ago, before it was
euthanized, Oldsmobile produced the Aurora and the Intrigue and the
Alero, and all were world-class competitive cars that were arguably
better in their respective niches than most of the competition,
regardless of source. The Intrigue had a 3.5liter dohc V6 over 10
years ago, but that wasn't enough to sway buyers who were already
hooked on more expensive Japanese offerings. The current (and soon
to be dead) Saturn Aura is another car that many enthusiast magazines
graded higher and which cost less than the imported competition, but
Saturn is being phased out. The current Chevy Malibu and Ford Fusion
are mainstream mid-sized cars that compete against the Accord, Camry,
Altima, and Sonata and have finished highly against and in some cases
on top of the the comparisons with those import options.
No, the problem isn't the product, it's perception, and perceptions
are difficult things to change. 23 years ago I bought a 1987 Chevy
Beretta GT Coupe, brand new, and people at the time told me "never buy
a first year GM product, you'll just finish testing it for them,
they're never ready until they've shaken the bugs out of them in the
first two or three years of production." I drove the car 74,000
miles before my family grew to the point that we needed a station
wagon. In 74,000 miles, I put a set of tires on it, changed the oil
and oil filter, and replaced a dripping water pump that I got for
$12.99 at the local autoparts store. I replaced that car with a used
1987 Ford Taurus station wagon that hd 58,000 miles on it, and we
drove it to the 129,000 mile mark, replaced the battery and also had
to put a water pump in it. Sold it for exactly $800 less than we had
paid for it, seven years earlier. To this day, people will tell me
all about how terrible American cars were in the 1980's and how
they'll never buy another American car. And people still tell me
"Don't buy an American car in its first year of production, because it
will be a lemon." Never mind that many of them have never OWNED an
American car. I've never had a lemon in my life, domestic or
foreign.
I've owned about 40 cars and trucks in my lifetime, almost exactly
equally divided between U.S. cars and imports, and I can categorically
state that whether the car was a U.S.-built or foreign-built car,
there was nothing close to a consensus case for or against either
group on the basis of quality. And that includes British (!) and
French (!) and German imports as well as Japanese imports, and
Japanese and American and German products built in the U.S, along with
U.S. products built in Mexico and Canada.
Vito
[ If you are familiar with the history of the world automotive market,
[ you know that the U.S. has never made any particular effort to export
[ domestic U.S. automotive products to other markets, specifically
[ because it knew that what Americans wanted and needed in an automobile
[ has traditionally been something very different from what Europeans
[ and Australians and Asians wanted and needed in an automobile.
Yes. Worse yet from a detroit standpoint, Euro and Asian government
subsidization made them uncompetative. After WW2, Britian and Japan
subsidized exports whilst our farm policies had the opposite effect on food
exports that might have closed the gap. Other countries have government
health care. Here it is paid by employers and tacked onto the selling
price. That's one reason so many "American" cars are assembled in Canada or
Mexico. Now the US auto industry, and industry in general, is in about the
same shape as the Brit bike industry got into a few decades back even tho
the quality of my last real Triumph was quite good.
TOG@Toil
>
<massive snip of interesting stuff>
>
> I've owned about 40 cars and trucks in my lifetime, almost exactly
> equally divided between U.S. cars and imports, and I can categorically
> state that whether the car was a U.S.-built or foreign-built car,
> there was nothing close to a consensus case for or against either
> group on the basis of quality. And that includes British (!) and
> French (!) and German imports as well as Japanese imports, and
> Japanese and American and German products built in the U.S, along with
> U.S. products built in Mexico and Canada.
I must say, the only British car I ever stewarded was a Rover, in the
1980s. Basically, a Honda Ballade built at Rover's plant. And while
Rover had gone to the trouble of sorting out the crap suspension and
not-so-good interior, they'd also put their own engine in it (the
smaller version got a Honda engine, mind). And the build quality was
pretty poor.
I've had a couple of French cars - nice to drive, pretty poor build
quality - and a disastrous Nissan Primera (the most unreliable
vehicle, four wheels or two, I've ever had). Ford Europe products?
Yup, always consistently good, except for a period in the early 1990s.
Certainly better than GM equivalents, which means Vauxhall/Opel over
here.
Best quality of any car I've run is the present Subaru Legacy. Quite
phenomenal. The wife's ten year-old Nissan Micra is also
supernaturally reliable (and was a major factor in the decision to buy
a Primera).
I can understand that US manufacturers want to concentrate on the home
market, but t seems that they're losing it, fast. I still hanker for a
US musclecar simply because while they may be cheap in many respects,
nobody else on the planet seems to do that particular type of vehicle
as well as the Yanks.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
My wife drives a Chevy. It was manufactured in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Tim
> "Tim" <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote
Excellent point. I had a '74 Norton Commando 850 that I completely
rebuilt from the ground up with only 6,000 miles on it (it had been
disassembled with the intent of being made into a cafe racer when it
was but one year old, and thereafter had been stored in boxes until I
bought it in '91 or so) and that bike was worn out and ready for a
rebuild again, 12,000 miles later. Meanwhile, my buddy Clayton
bought a 1978 (Meridan) Triumph Tiger 750 brand new when he graduated
from high school and rode that bike well over 100,000 miles before his
riding career was ended by an accident in 1993. The difference in
build quality between those two bikes was staggering.
Likewise, the American people in general can't be bothered to test
drive a Malibu against an Accord or Camry, because they've had three
good, reliable, Accords in a row. Sure, no doubt. Accords have been
good cars since they started making them. Now, they are also heavy,
luxurious, big, well made, dead quiet, boring, numb, reliable, and
have good resale value. They are everything that Americans used to
make fun of Oldsmobiles and Buicks for being. And the Malibu is
better in the upscale V6 versions, while being less expensive, and is
equal in the four-cylinder version, while being less expensive, and
according to everything I've read, it's more FUN to drive than the
Accord or the Camry.
(Aside: I can remember the 1980's when the American car magazines
just eviscerated American cars for having flat, non-ergonomic,
"styled" dashboards that ran across the whole width of the cabin and
were difficult to read. They complained that American cars should
have nice, ergonomic, central binnacles with a readable tach and
speedo, flanked by decent oil pressure, ammeter (or voltmeter), water
temperature gauges, not idiot lights. And they were right. Well, hot
damn, my '87 Beretta's dashboard was even EASIER to read and MORE
ergonomic than the dash on my 1983 VW GTI. A couple of years later,
when the fourth gen Honda Prelude come out, they replaced the
dashboard with a flat thin black luminescent strip that went all the
way across the cabin of the car, and featured a bizarre mix of anolog
and digital gauges that blinks and sparkled like a Christmas tree.
And of course, that was so "futuristic" and "forward thinking" and
"innovative" of Honda; never mind that it had every single failing of
the old American dashboards that the magazines had complained so
bitterly about.)
Like I said, perceptions are a difficult thing to change.
TOG@Toil
> "Tim" <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote
> [ If you are familiar with the history of the world automotive market,
> [ you know that the U.S. has never made any particular effort to export
> [ domestic U.S. automotive products to other markets, specifically
> [ because it knew that what Americans wanted and needed in an automobile
> [ has traditionally been something very different from what Europeans
> [ and Australians and Asians wanted and needed in an automobile.
>
> Yes. Worse yet from a detroit standpoint, Euro and Asian government
> subsidization made them uncompetative.
Absolutely, at least as far as European (and British) cars are
concenred. Asian? Um, I wouldn't call them uncompetitive. :-/
After WW2, Britian and Japan
> subsidized exports whilst our farm policies had the opposite effect on food
> exports that might have closed the gap.
The European farm subsidies are still a headache. Britain has never
forgotten that in two world wars, the closest it came to defeat was by
having its food supplies cut off, and Europe generally was on the very
edge of famine in 1945-46. For these reasons alone (never mind votes),
there's a strong incentive to keep food production in Europe.
> Other countries have government
> health care. Here it is paid by employers and tacked onto the selling
> price. That's one reason so many "American" cars are assembled in Canada or
> Mexico. Now the US auto industry, and industry in general, is in about the
> same shape as the Brit bike industry got into a few decades back even tho
> the quality of my last real Triumph was quite good.
Oh, yes, excellent comparison.
turby
> ...
> I don't know much about US cars, actually, so educate me. What marques
> and models are worth buying, and why? Let's leave aside the gas-
> guzzling trucks, niche market musclecars (I'd love a modern Mustang or
> 'Vette) and SUVs and concentrate on mainstream cars.
But since trucks are the biggest sellers, you can't very well exclude
them and have a meaningful response.
Personally, I have no use for sedans. I almost never need to carry
more than 3 people in my truck, but it is far more useful to carry any
and all loads bigger than my motorcycle will carry.
It always baffled me why foreign manufacturers (other than Toyota)
refused to enter the pickup truck market.
Jack Hunt
>Let's all chip in and buy one of these 50 fix'r'uppers in Detroit
>for a Reeky HQ.
Good luck. We tried to have a Reeky Ride this summer. How many showed up? Four
or five? You'll never get 'em to buy a house in Murder Central.
--
Jack
J. Clarke
What's "worth buying" depends on what you're looking for. The SUVs _are_
mainstream--they've replaced the station wagon (what in the UK is known as
an "estate" I believe) which was legislated out of existence by fuel economy
taxes as the grocery-getter and kid-hauler of choice.
Most of the American cars on the market come under the heading of "keep your
butt off the road and the rain off your head and get you where you need to
go". A Taurus or Malibu does fine if you don't need more hauling capacity
than they provide.
The thing that has historically been good about all of them is that they
have rather rudimentary drive trains and cast-iron pushrod engines that are
nearly indestructible and cheap to repair or replace. Big, heavy,
slow-turning, inefficient engines that routinely go 250,000 miles before the
first overhaul.
That's changing with fuel prices going up and the fuel economy tax being
tightened, so now we're getting aluminum blocks and multiple overhead cams
and the rest from all the US manufacturers.
Something that has gotten missed in all the noise is that Ford, GM, and
Chrysler have all been making perfectly adequate econoboxes for years, but
they aren't as cheap as the Japanese and Korean econoboxes, so people in the
market for an econobox go to the Japanese and Koreans.
Steve Paul
Overall, I believe Americans design an excellent car, but they nickel and
dime the execution for the sake of a buck, only to provide a less than
optimal result, which leads to unncessary recalls and/or parts replacements
by the customer.
My '99 Chevy Malibu w/3100 SFI V6 provokes quite a bit of positive and
negative commentary, but suffice it to say I still prefer it over the
comparably priced 4 cylinder '99 Camry in performance, and maintenance
costs. There's one of each in my family, and the Malibu is less prone to
failure, and cheaper to repair, now that both vehicles have over 100,000
miles on the clock. The interior of the Camry is better, where the
drivetrain of the Malibu is better.
We aso have a 2001 Malibu in the family, and it's a degraded version of the
'99 IMO. Apparently Chevrolet was responding to complaints about the stiff
ride of the earlier models, and the platform went from being a sport
conscious sedan to more luxury minded, like the Camry.
If I can't get an Electric car when the '99 Malibu is ready for the bone
yard, I'll have no reservations about walking into a Chevy dealer and buying
a late model Malibu (if I can afford it). I'm not a huge fan of the
direction that outward designs have taken over the last decade, but as far
as the platform and drivetrain, I have faith in Chevy.
I've had a couple of Fords over the years, including a Mustang. I'm not a
fan. The Mustang provokes an emotional response and is fun to drive, but I'd
probably wonder what it would be like to be driving a Camaro if I bought
another.
In the end, if American car manufacturers had carte blanche for procuring
and installing components, we'd be getting an excellent car. There's nothing
particulary bad about the designs. We just can't afford good (American made)
components, and the cost of good (American) labor, where pofit driven
shareholder loyalty drives the bottom line.
I'm concerned that the inability to produce quality at a low price point, is
misrepresenting the ability of American engineers and workers to produce
good products. It's simply not true.
Management is the problem. Us grunts that do the work, and are closest to
the issue of quality, are always pissed off about the business decisions
that have to be made, in order to get product out the door, for the sake of
a revenue stream held hostage by shareholders and investors who are not
committed to the company product, but to their own bottom line.
A lot of very good technology has fallen on the floor over the years. We'd
be far more advanced technologically, if it were not for business and
marketing failure. Engineers love to solve problems, and workers love to
build the solutions.
My nickel,
Steve Paul
(Not a socialist, just complaining)
Henry
Unregulated greed based capitalism - gotta love it. Imagine how
different things would be if the hundreds of billions of tax payer
dollars that are wasted on illegal, immoral terror campaigns in the
Middle East were invested here at home, and our government didn't
hand out hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to corporate thieves
and parasites on Wall Street or give obscene tax breaks to the
wealthiest few...
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
than a small one."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
The Older Gentleman
> Management is the problem. Us grunts that do the work, and are closest to
> the issue of quality, are always pissed off about the business decisions
> that have to be made, in order to get product out the door, for the sake of
> a revenue stream held hostage by shareholders and investors who are not
> committed to the company product, but to their own bottom line.
Yes, I like this summary. OTOH, it could be argued that if you can't
make the product price-competitive, it won't sell anyway....
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
The Older Gentleman
> Something that has gotten missed in all the noise is that Ford, GM, and
> Chrysler have all been making perfectly adequate econoboxes for years, but
> they aren't as cheap as the Japanese and Korean econoboxes, so people in the
> market for an econobox go to the Japanese and Koreans.
Now that's interesting. Over here, the Japanese cars aren't that cheap.
Positively expensive, in the case of Honda and (maybe) Subaru. But
Korean, yes, good value. And with five year warranties on some.
And they've upped their quality game *immensely* in the last few years.
The Older Gentleman
Vito
[ ..... I still hanker for a
[ US musclecar simply because while they may be cheap in many respects,
[ nobody else on the planet seems to do that particular type of vehicle
[ as well as the Yanks.
Sadly, we can't build them any more either - not since 1970.
The Older Gentleman
Really?
<disappointed>
I thought the new generation of Mustang, Corvette et al had it nailed
(within the modern eco-weenie legislation, of course).
I'm seriously contemplating crossing the Atlantic to buy a decent used
Harley to bring back (Oi! RGD! Aren't you answering emails?). I'd do the
same for a decnt used musclecar.
Mark Olson
> Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> [ ..... I still hanker for a
>> [ US musclecar simply because while they may be cheap in many respects,
>> [ nobody else on the planet seems to do that particular type of vehicle
>> [ as well as the Yanks.
>>
>> Sadly, we can't build them any more either - not since 1970.
> I thought the new generation of Mustang, Corvette et al had it nailed
> (within the modern eco-weenie legislation, of course).
>
> I'm seriously contemplating crossing the Atlantic to buy a decent used
> Harley to bring back (Oi! RGD! Aren't you answering emails?). I'd do the
> same for a decnt used musclecar.
Vito's on some sort of mission here to see how many fish he can net by
throwing a bunch of chum in the water. I guess the 540hp 27 mpg (that's
US gallons, BTW) 2010 Mustang Cobra 500 doesn't hold a candle to the
Mustangs of the 60s and 70s.
http://www.mlive.com/naias/index.ssf/2009/01/ford_shows_some_horsepower_at.html
Nor does the 426 hp 2010 Camaro SS count for anything I suppose:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/101-year-old-man-buys-a-426-hp-camaro/
And that Corvette ZR1 is a mere piece of shit with only 638 hp.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4260714.html
And I'm sure none of these cars _handle_ anywhere near as good as they
did in the good old days, oh no.
Vito might have something of a point in that nowadays you can't buy
a stripped down economy model with a humongous engine with every
performance part the factory offers, like you could back then. Today,
to get the utmost performance, you usually have to buy a top of the
line, expensive car.
PS If you dee something you like on Craigslist, and I'll go poke at it.
sleazy
Ford is doing ok, the other two need a good bitchslapping to wake them
up. There's several production facilities left in the area, but I
can't think of any in the city proper. GM owns the RenCen and uses it
as their HQ for the time being.
Interesting discussion topic at the desk today. Are there more CCWs or
suspended licenses in the city? I think it's about even, a bunch of
both. LOL! There are huge amounts of cars in the city that will never
cross the borders into neighboring townships. Detroit is very lax on
insurance certs and many of the cars simply don't carry it. A fake
cert to get tags every year and keep on driving. Then again, car
insurance is outrageous too. My mechanic/tech pays nearly $6k a year
for his 1997 Camaro. Wonder why?
Check out ADVrider for some innercity ride reports. A couple riders
toured the old Packard plant right down the street from where my
grandmother lived.
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=525078 is the one. ;)
This is one of the better areas.
sleazy
Thank you for saving me the time to type that up, Mark. There's some
hot street cars rolling out of the Big 3 still. I had a very small
part, miniscule at best, in the development of the 2003 Mustang Cobra
Rs. We supplied the machining fluids to the engine production shop.
Each motor was hand built and tested for racing onsite. Their dyno
facilities are very impressive. <g> Even more so when one lets go at
high rpms. ;)
The Older Gentleman
> I guess the 540hp 27 mpg (that's
> US gallons, BTW) 2010 Mustang Cobra 500 doesn't hold a candle to the
> Mustangs of the 60s and 70s.
>
>
http://www.mlive.com/naias/index.ssf/2009/01/ford_shows_some_horsepower_
at.html
Bastard. You utter, utter *bastard*.
OK, so let's talk used examples (avoid the initial depreciation and a
chunk of UK tax).
How much, for say, a one year-old example with under 10k miles?
The Older Gentleman
> Interesting discussion topic at the desk today. Are there more CCWs or
> suspended licenses in the city? I think it's about even, a bunch of
> both.
CCWs???
The Older Gentleman
> Each motor was hand built and tested for racing onsite.
Bastard. BASTARD.
Sean_Q_
> CCWs???
Concealed Carry Weapon?
SQ
sleazy
Yup. Gotta take the training class and pay the county $125 for the
opportunity. Or just don't let anyone know you're doing it. ;) Not
that I'd ever encourage that.
sleazy
Gentleman) said:
> Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I guess the 540hp 27 mpg (that's
>> US gallons, BTW) 2010 Mustang Cobra 500 doesn't hold a candle to the
>> Mustangs of the 60s and 70s.
>>
>>
> http://www.mlive.com/naias/index.ssf/2009/01/ford_shows_some_horsepower_
> at.html
>
> Bastard. You utter, utter *bastard*.
>
> OK, so let's talk used examples (avoid the initial depreciation and a
> chunk of UK tax).
>
> How much, for say, a one year-old example with under 10k miles?
It's a one off and limited production for 2010. There's been several
variations on that theme over the years with Ford. Take a look at
Craigslist or www.autotrader.com for pricing.
sleazy
Gentleman) said:
> sleazy <no...@nil.net> wrote:
>
>> Each motor was hand built and tested for racing onsite.
>
> Bastard. BASTARD.
From wiki:
Carroll Shelby lends his name to the 2007 Mustang, officially called
the Shelby GT500. The 2007 GT500 brought back the Cobra (named after
its Shelby badging, a coiled cobra snake) after a three year layoff.
The new Cobra boasts 500 bhp from a new 5.4 liter V8. The GT500's 5.4
is a DOHC model like previous Cobras but has Ford GT aluminum heads and
specially tuned cams in order to flow the 9 pounds of boost supplied by
the completely revised supercharger. The driveline is strengthened with
a hydraulic twin disc clutch, a sturdier, regeared Tremec T-6060 6
speed manual transmission, and a solid 31 spline rear axle. The
independent rear suspension of the 99-04 Cobra is no longer available
in the GT500. With the new model, Ford has catered to the drag racing
crowd, whereas previous Cobras tilted to road racer. The GT500 is
heavier than other models, owing largely to the iron 5.4 engine in
place of the aluminum 4.6 engine in previous years (except for
2003-2004 which had the iron 4.6). The previous body's IRS package is
generally considered weaker than the solid rear end and thus better
suited to drag racing abuse. On smooth pavement the solid rear end
actually performs better than the IRS, which is mainly suited to uneven
surfaces. The GT500 also has a larger set of 18" wheels, bigger brakes,
and larger sway bars to accommodate the larger, heavier engine.
_____________
You might want to look at this one. :p It's a handful to drive. Then
again, I had the opportunity to play with the absolute one off, never
intended for production V10 Mustang. OMFG! It went everywhere but
straight on hard acceleration. <grin> Link provided for agitation
effect.
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/featuredvehicles/138_0402_boss_351_v10_mustang/index.html
sleazy
Sample of Detroit offerings:
http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/cto/1472797620.html I can hear the
gears whirling from Blightly all the way over here.
S'mee
FUck off Kook....you commies FAILED. Just like your life you moron.
turby
Gentleman) wrote:
Ah, you're right. (I haven't been in the market for one for 15 years.
My '94 Dodge Ram only has 50,000 miles on it.)
Further research shows that Honda finally entered the market in '06,
and Volkswagen will build a pickup in '10, but it won't be coming to
the US. Still, I think it's a fair comparison to the argument that
American makers don't compete well overseas. The Ford F150 has been
America's best-selling vehicle for 20 years, and this year the top 3
are all pickups.
Sean_Q_
> ....you commies FAILED.
A Commie who quotes Adolph Hitler in his SIG?
SQ
Scott
<keen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mazda B series, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra and Tacoma, Nissan Titan and
Frontier, Honda Ridgeline, and that's just what Wikipedia knows, not
including Japanese-made trucks sold under US brands. And I wouldn't call a
single one of them a "truck". They sort of look like trucks, but if you
tried to load one like I load my pickup truck, you'd just break the frame
and pop the tires.
So that's my two cents - there isn't a single truck made by any non-US
manufacturer that would meet my needs as a pickup truck owner. I admit you
could probably adapt a commercial truck, but that costs extra and you'd
still have a commercial truck, not something made with passengers in mind.
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
Scott
<keen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(2nd try, forgot to strip filtering headers for threading...duh...)
Mazda B series, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra and Tacoma, Nissan Titan and
J. Clarke
> sleazy <no...@nil.net> wrote:
>
>> Each motor was hand built and tested for racing onsite.
>
> Bastard. BASTARD.
Google "2006 Ford GT".
Vito
| The Older Gentleman wrote:
| > Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| >
| >> "TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
| >> [ ..... I still hanker for a
| >> [ US musclecar simply because while they may be cheap in many respects,
| >> [ nobody else on the planet seems to do that particular type of vehicle
| >> [ as well as the Yanks.
| >>
| >> Sadly, we can't build them any more either - not since 1970.
|
| > I thought the new generation of Mustang, Corvette et al had it nailed
| > (within the modern eco-weenie legislation, of course).
| >
| > I'm seriously contemplating crossing the Atlantic to buy a decent used
| > Harley to bring back (Oi! RGD! Aren't you answering emails?). I'd do the
| > same for a decnt used musclecar.
|
| Vito's on some sort of mission here to see how many fish he can net by
| throwing a bunch of chum in the water. I guess the 540hp 27 mpg (that's
| US gallons, BTW) 2010 Mustang Cobra 500 doesn't hold a candle to the
| Mustangs of the 60s and 70s.
|
|
http://www.mlive.com/naias/index.ssf/2009/01/ford_shows_some_horsepower_at.html
|
| Nor does the 426 hp 2010 Camaro SS count for anything I suppose:
|
|
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/101-year-old-man-buys-a-426-hp-camaro/
|
| And that Corvette ZR1 is a mere piece of shit with only 638 hp.
|
| http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4260714.html
|
| And I'm sure none of these cars _handle_ anywhere near as good as they
| did in the good old days, oh no.
Sorry, I was unaware of these new models except the 'vette and last I heard
it cost over $100k. Are they affordable by middle class folks?
|
| Vito might have something of a point in that nowadays you can't buy
| a stripped down economy model with a humongous engine with every
| performance part the factory offers, like you could back then. Today,
| to get the utmost performance, you usually have to buy a top of the
| line, expensive car.
Perhaps that answered my question ...
Before 1970 cars like the mustang and camero, or GM midsized supercars cost
less than half a junior engineers annual salery, weighed about the same and
had a tad more real HP but did not get 27 mpg. For example, my optioned out
goat would carry up to five people around comfortably and run a 1/4 in the
mid 11's, but only got 12 mpg.
Vito
| Sample of Detroit offerings:
| http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/cto/1472797620.html I can hear the
| gears whirling from Blightly all the way over here.
| --
as much as a late 60s equivalent even in inflated dollars.
Chuck Rhode
> Best quality of any car I've run is the present Subaru Legacy. Quite
> phenomenal.
I'm driving a '94 I bought out of a junkyard last fall.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 42° — Wind NW 3 mph — Sky overcast. Light rain; mist.
don (Calgary)
<CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:05:23 -0800, TOG@Toil wrote:
>
>> Best quality of any car I've run is the present Subaru Legacy. Quite
>> phenomenal.
>
>I'm driving a '94 I bought out of a junkyard last fall.
Hey I'm driving an old 85, I found covered in dust, in the back of a
farmers shed, last fall.
Chuck Rhode
> The Ford F150 has been America's best-selling vehicle for 20 years,
> and this year the top 3 are all pickups.
... and, like riding a motorcycle, owning one places you squarely in a
demographic targeted by bureaucrats charged with ensuring your safety.
Here's a choice bit of Federal profiling that hit the airwaves three
years ago. I heard it parroted yesterday on Public Radio by a
Wisconsin State official:
"A male who drives a pickup truck on country roads can reasonably
presumed to be a NASCAR fan. And you would reasonably presume that
this fan knows that the reason racecar drivers generally walk away
from horrific wrecks is that they are belted into their cars.
"If the feds can convince those drivers to make that last little
connection between seat-belt use and their own safety, a lot of lives
will be saved. The numbers back it up."
"The federal government's latest report on traffic safety is
prosaically titled "Research Note: Restraint Use Patterns Among
Fatally Injured Passenger Vehicle Occupants." In essence, it
identified who the people are who didn't buckle their seat belts and
got killed because of it.
"And those people are disproportionately males, driving on rural
highways in pickups or SUVs...."
o "Seat Belts: Upcoming Campaign Only Makes Sense." _Evansville
Courier and Press_ 17 May 2006. 25 Nov. 2009
<http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/may/17/seat-belts-upcoming-campaign-only-makes-sense/>.
I've not bothered to download, open, and read the NHTSA *.pdf, but I
can just imagine the preconceived notions that undergird it -- to wit:
Don't be like them! Those who got killed got killed for one reason
and one reason only, and their congenital stupidity, social
awkwardness, poor grooming habits, susceptibility to substance abuse,
and disadvantaged economic status all qualified them for inevitable
retribution!
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 43° — Wind NNW 6 mph — Sky overcast. Light rain; mist.
Chuck Rhode
> Steve Paul <smarsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Management is the problem. Us grunts that do the work, and are
>> closest to the issue of quality, are always pissed off about the
>> business decisions that have to be made, in order to get product
>> out the door, for the sake of a revenue stream held hostage by
>> shareholders and investors who are not committed to the company
>> product, but to their own bottom line.
> Yes, I like this summary. OTOH, it could be argued that if you can't
> make the product price-competitive, it won't sell anyway....
To me it seems the arguments come down to, "How much is enough?" and a
corollary is, "How soon do you need to realize a profit?" American
business has been pathologically focused on near-term results to the
utter disregard of future revenue.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 42° — Wind N 6 mph — Sky overcast. Light rain; mist.
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/cto/1472797620.html
I wasn't really thinking of a track car, to be honest.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
It's okay to be a commie nazi if you're already a netkook. That's
known as "Henry's Thid Law of Conservation of Kookiness."[1]
[1] There is no First or Second law, because well, it's kookier that
way.
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> sleazy <no...@nil.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Each motor was hand built and tested for racing onsite.
>>>
>>> Bastard. BASTARD.
>>
>> Google "2006 Ford GT".
>
> <Deliberately not playing>
Here's the "Top Gear" segment on it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8209502428766149880#
Note that the engines are _signed_ by the Ford employees who build them.
Oh, and McDonalds gave one away in their annual Ronald McDonald House
sweepstakes a couple of years ago.
Vito
| You've never owned a 2000 Dodge Durango.
|
No but I rented a Honda Accord recently.
What a piece of shit.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:0117c5a2-73b6-4347-9b23-
> 6ac1f4717...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I've never had a lemon in my life, domestic or
> > foreign.
>
> You've never owned a 2000 Dodge Durango.
This is true. However, my brother owns a first-gen Durango that
currently has over 270,000 miles on it and is daily transportation for
two of his teenagers. And my buddy Clayton had a second-gen Dakota
(that the first-gen Durango was based on) that he sold with 240,000
miles on it without ever having had any notable problems with it.
And I have owned Triumph Spitfires and GT-6's and two Renaults. None
of them were lemons, either.
Mark Olson
> And I have owned Triumph Spitfires and GT-6's and two Renaults. None
> of them were lemons, either.
'The exception that proves the rule'
Renault Dauphine: Worst. Car. Ever.
Wikipedia says:
"It was also heavier and 12 in (300 mm) longer than its predecessor,
but used the same engine, albeit a version increased in size and
power from 760 cc to 845 cc and 19 hp to 32 hp (14 kW to 24 kW) (the
Dauphine was infamously slow: Road & Track magazine measured the
Dauphine's 0-60 mph/0–97 km/h acceleration time as 32 seconds). "
Vito
| Renault Dauphine: Worst. Car. Ever.
|
| Wikipedia says:
|
| "It was also heavier and 12 in (300 mm) longer than its predecessor,
| but used the same engine, albeit a version increased in size and
| power from 760 cc to 845 cc and 19 hp to 32 hp (14 kW to 24 kW) (the
| Dauphine was infamously slow: Road & Track magazine measured the
| Dauphine's 0-60 mph/0–97 km/h acceleration time as 32 seconds). "
|
I owned a 1957 Dauphine. It was priced cheaper than a VW, had about the same
acceleration and top speed (neither remarkable) but had 4 doors, its heater
worked, the defroster didn't fog the windshield and was king of its class in
the parking lot slalom league thanks to better handling. The "trunk" made a
great cooler.
Down side was they tipped easier than a VW or Porsche unless rear axel
travel was limited and dealer service sucked.
Hardly the best or the worst $1600 car ever.
J. Clarke
Sounds like it was aimed at the same market as the Citroen 2CV and the
Subaru 360. The 2CV was at least entertaining to look at.
The Older Gentleman
> Sounds like it was aimed at the same market as the Citroen 2CV and the
> Subaru 360. The 2CV was at least entertaining to look at.
And to drive. All 600cc of it.
The early models had a smaller 436cc engine. When I was a student in
France, a friend had one.
I remember she was lifting us all back from town one night (four up in
the car made it supernaturally sluggish), and one of our lot was
American who asked, curiously, how big the engine was.
"Quatre cent trente-six centimetres cubes..." she replied nonchalantly.
You could see this guy's brain turning over. He'd heard 436cc, and he
spoke good French, but it didn't compute. He must have made a mistake.
He knew it wasn't four thousand cc, because patently it didn't have a
four and a half litre engine, and nobody, in his book, put a four
hundred cc engine in a car.
So he asked again, and got the same answer.
And the penny dropped. "Four hundred and thirty-six cee-cee? We wouldn't
even put that in a lawnmower!"
He had a point :-)
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Sounds like it was aimed at the same market as the Citroen 2CV and the
> > Subaru 360. The 2CV was at least entertaining to look at.
>
> And to drive. All 600cc of it.
>
> The early models had a smaller 436cc engine. When I was a student in
> France, a friend had one.
>
> I remember she was lifting us all back from town one night (four up in
> the car made it supernaturally sluggish), and one of our lot was
> American who asked, curiously, how big the engine was.
>
> "Quatre cent trente-six centimetres cubes..." she replied nonchalantly.
>
> You could see this guy's brain turning over. He'd heard 436cc, and he
> spoke good French, but it didn't compute. He must have made a mistake.
> He knew it wasn't four thousand cc, because patently it didn't have a
> four and a half litre engine, and nobody, in his book, put a four
> hundred cc engine in a car.
>
> So he asked again, and got the same answer.
>
> And the penny dropped. "Four hundred and thirty-six cee-cee? We wouldn't
> even put that in a lawnmower!"
>
> He had a point :-)
that he was an ass? 8^) MY big lawnmower is 150cc of thumping humping
Honda horizontal power... 8^) The Techumsa is a little bigge iirc...or
not.
8^)
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> "tomor...@erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:779d0a42-343d-4352...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This is true. However, my brother owns a first-gen Durango that
> > currently has over 270,000 miles on it and is daily transportation for
> > two of his teenagers. And my buddy Clayton had a second-gen Dakota
> > (that the first-gen Durango was based on) that he sold with 240,000
> > miles on it without ever having had any notable problems with it.
>
> severe oil sludging.
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with yours, or anyone else's in
general. You intimated that the reason I hadn't ever had a lemon
vehicle was because I had never owned a Dodge Durango. I merely
pointed out that if I had owned a Dodge Durango, that was insufficient
cause to assume that I would have had a lemon.
I work with two women who have had severe problems with the brakes on
their Honda Accords. They have the massive repair bills to prove it.
I have never claimed that as evidence that Honda Accords are terrible
cars, nor have I ever mentioned my brother and friend's experiences
with their Dodges to claim that Durangos or Dakotas are great
vehicles.
I did think that one of the women with the brake problems with her
Honda, who also had major transmission problems with it, was nuts to
trade it in on a new Honda Accord; but she did anyway. The funniest
part about it was that she had talked to me about it for a long time,
and finally she said what changed her mind about buying a new Honda
was that the dealer "confided" in her that "all the Hondas" around the
year hers was built had bad transmissions and bad brakes, not just
hers. Good reason to buy another one!
don (Calgary)
>"tomo...@erols.com" <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:779d0a42-343d-4352...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>> This is true. However, my brother owns a first-gen Durango that
>> currently has over 270,000 miles on it and is daily transportation for
>> two of his teenagers. And my buddy Clayton had a second-gen Dakota
>> (that the first-gen Durango was based on) that he sold with 240,000
>> miles on it without ever having had any notable problems with it.
>
> Ours (and *MANY* others... Take a look at the NTSB reports) suffers from
>severe oil sludging.
I thought it was just the 2.7 that was plagued by sludge. I had a
Sebring with 60,000 kms on the clock when the engine seized. The
problem, oil sludge.
I was aware of the history of the engine and had the oil changed
religiously and in the blink of an eye it turned into a very expensive
lawn ornament. Now to be fair, my commute to work was ridiculously
short and I know that was a contributing cause.
All the info I read indicated the sludge problem was specific to the
2.7. Is it a problem with the 4.7 too?
Bob Mann
news:gcb1h5duh0e8n8lo3...@4ax.com:
> All the info I read indicated the sludge problem was specific to the
> 2.7. Is it a problem with the 4.7 too?
>
If it is, my Jeep will be gone quickly.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>news:gcb1h5duh0e8n8lo3...@4ax.com:
>
>> All the info I read indicated the sludge problem was specific to the
>> 2.7. Is it a problem with the 4.7 too?
>>
>
>If it is, my Jeep will be gone quickly.
After my Dakota!
Bob Mann
Actually, I've been thinking about downsizing to a Patriot anyway.
I like the power but the gas mileage is poor.
The Patriot does all I need it to do.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>news:s9l2h51e2uom3mkbq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:57:39 +0000 (UTC), Bob Mann
>> <bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>>>news:gcb1h5duh0e8n8lo3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> All the info I read indicated the sludge problem was specific to the
>>>> 2.7. Is it a problem with the 4.7 too?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it is, my Jeep will be gone quickly.
>>
>> After my Dakota!
>>
>
>Actually, I've been thinking about downsizing to a Patriot anyway.
>I like the power but the gas mileage is poor.
>The Patriot does all I need it to do.
Have you driven a Patriot? I took one for a test drive a couple of
months ago and felt it was a cut below the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee
for quality, road noise and comfort.
Of course, after I tossed the idea of buying another new(er) [1]
vehicle I ended up with a used Dakota, which is also a cut below its
competitors when it comes to quality, road noise and comfort.
Gas mileage is less of an issue for me. My last tank of gas (in the
truck) lasted me over five weeks. It would have lasted longer if I
didn't drive the truck to Red Deer last month. And the Dakota is a
fuel hog. Hard to believe if I want to drive four wheels for fuel
economy I need to take the Jag.
[1] I usually look for something less than a year old with 10,000 kms
or so on the clock.