American Car Makes
 

American auto makers can take apart and study in detail the
competitions' cars. They know exactly how the top sellers and reliable
cars are built, right down to the screws. They know how they perform on
their test tracks. They know what look is selling.

So why do they keep screwing up?

GM makes nice trucks but except for Cadillac and the Corvette, piece of
**** cars. The Cadillacs are in may ways better than their Japanese
competitors. I know my STS is a far better car than a pal's top end
Infiniti.

American auto makers are notorious in my opinion for substituting
plastic exteriors to make the cars look "cool" for a decent powerplant,
witness Pontiac. Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
but never consistently put a good engine in.

Even when they get the engine and look right, they will throw in a
crappy interior. The Corvette falls into this category.

Chevy makes all these cheap **** sedans that nobody in their right mind
would ever buy.

Ford is in my opinion mostly a lost cause. When I am car shopping I
hardly ever go to a Ford dealer. The last Ford I owned leaked oil all
the time no matter what I had done to it.

Did the American car makers really think people would be buying assault
vehicles to drive around forever?

I just don't get what they think they have been doing.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:

> American auto makers can take apart and study in detail the
> competitions' cars. They know exactly how the top sellers and reliable
> cars are built, right down to the screws. They know how they perform on
> their test tracks. They know what look is selling.

That is what you get when you buy a foriegn car. The American
auto makes are names like Subaru, Hyundi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda,
etc. The cars that are associated with the Detroit names are
largely foreign made or of mostly foreign content. Buy American
by skipping Detroit.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Dave Lister wrote:
Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
> but never consistently put a good engine in.

HUH?

Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
slant six was even more reliable.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1118613850.20d62b3932c1985fb12d10cda8db708c@t eranews...
> Dave Lister wrote:
> Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>> but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
> HUH?
>
> Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
> offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
> motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
> issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the slant
> six was even more reliable.
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

I've seen a few slant six engines last 300,000-400,000 miles with few
problems in a 1970's fleet of Dusters. And fleet vehicles aren't exactly
the best treated.

Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> Dave Lister wrote:
> Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
> > but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
> HUH?
>
> Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
> offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
> motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
> issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
> slant six was even more reliable.

We've got two Dodge 318s from 1968 and 1970, both running strong. A friend
however, had a 198x LeBaron that was constantly blowing head gaskets and
ultimately I think it cracked its block.

--
Cheers,Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government."
-- letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baron vonHumboldt, 1813

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Dave Lister wrote:
>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>> but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
>HUH?
>
>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
>offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
>motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
>issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
>slant six was even more reliable.
>
>nate

Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
to what you can get elsewhere.

DTJ wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>>
>>>but never consistently put a good engine in.
>>
>>HUH?
>>
>>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
>>offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
>>motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
>>issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
>>slant six was even more reliable.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
> than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
> to what you can get elsewhere.

IMHO since the early 70s, ALL American cars have sucked to some extent.
Chrysler actually postponed the suckage longer and more effectively
than Ford or GM. I still don't understand the comment about Chrysler
consistently not putting in good engines; up until very recently they
were still the best American engines out there and some were really
world class... the LA, B/RB, slant six, 2.2/2.5, all very decent
engines. What have the other guys been putting out? the 3800 is pretty
good, like I said the older non-Chevy GM engines were good, but other
than that...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

The Real Bev wrote:

> however, had a 198x LeBaron that was constantly blowing head gaskets and
> ultimately I think it cracked its block.

Don't know if it's with all LeBarons, but I had a LeBaron from that era,
and it had a Mitsubishi engine.

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://www.discountcadavers.com

Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1118629849.0557f4ff163c52732e3ebfaa82fa1cb8@t eranews:

> DTJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>>>
>>>>but never consistently put a good engine in.
>>>
>>>HUH?
>>>
>>>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and
>>>GM's offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy
>>>and Olds motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that
>>>they've had issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick
>>>****house and the slant six was even more reliable.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
>> than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
>> to what you can get elsewhere.
>
> IMHO since the early 70s, ALL American cars have sucked to some
> extent.
> Chrysler actually postponed the suckage longer and more effectively
> than Ford or GM. I still don't understand the comment about Chrysler
> consistently not putting in good engines; up until very recently they
> were still the best American engines out there and some were really
> world class... the LA, B/RB, slant six, 2.2/2.5, all very decent
> engines. What have the other guys been putting out? the 3800 is
> pretty good, like I said the older non-Chevy GM engines were good, but
> other than that...

Every Chrysler I have ever driven has been a noisy gutless pig. Of
course it's been a couple of years since I test drove a Concorde.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

Dave Lister wrote:

> Ford is in my opinion mostly a lost cause. When I am car shopping I
> hardly ever go to a Ford dealer. The last Ford I owned leaked oil all
> the time no matter what I had done to it.

My parents have owned Ford most of my life. In the last 40
years, not one Ford has leaked anough oil to put a spot of
the garage floor of their home (they didn't have a garage
floor before 1964, so I have no data for the 1953 to to 1963
period). I've owned several Fords myself. Only one ever left
oil on the ground, and it was promptly fixed under warranty.
Now the !%$#& Toyota I owned leaked oil like seive. My
Sister's have owned a couple of VWs and I beleive they were
trying to recoat the roads with fresh oil. And I won't
mention the assortment of British products I was addicted
to...... But Fords, (tractors excepted) have never been a
problem. My current oldest Ford (1992 F150, 100,000 miles)
has never leaked a drop of oil. The underhood is
unbelieveably clean. I can actaully work put my hands on
things under the hood without needing a gallon of GoJo to
clean-up (which is not true for my sisters much newer
Honda). Maybe you should try a Ford again. If you are
thinking Japanese cars are state of the art, you might be
surprised.

Ed