Mexico selling unsafe cars.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:42:25 AM UTC-5, JR wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 8:38:00 AM UTC-6, Vic Smith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:30:44 -0600, "T0m $herman"
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
>
> >
>
> > >early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
>
> >
>
> > >steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
>
> >
>
> > >poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
>
> >
>
> > >to boot.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Compared to what and to whom? Never had such issues with my '70's
>
> >
>
> > cars.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you wanted an Accord, I suppose. But that thought never entered
>
> >
>
> > my mind, seeing as Honda had no equivalent for a '76 Caprice or '78
>
> >
>
> > Beauville Van.
>
> >
>
> > Accord wasn't what I required for hauling a wife and 5 kids.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
>
> >
>
> > >contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nope.
>
>
>
> ''Detroit Iron'' is Tough. How many old ''Detroit Iron'' vehicles do you see still running around compared to the foreign name brand vehicles?

I'm starting to see a more & more foreign cars with historic tags on them. But I don't see any of them looking good/restored except for a few. Most are getting historic tags to avoid Maryland state inspections.

On 2013-12-03, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 12/2/2013 6:43 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2013 16:19:46 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> How much do Dodge vehicles differ from Plymouth vehicles of the same
>>>> era? Our family inherited a 1975 Plymouth Gran Fury in the late 1970's,
>>>> and that was one of the worst pieces of automotive excrement to ever
>>>> leave a factory. Poor engine reliability (first engine replaced under
>>>> warranty at 10K miles), terrible rust proofing (by the time the car was
>>>> 7 years old, the trunk was unusable due to rust holes), lots of air
>>>> leaks around the doors, door handle hardware partially failed on all
>>>> doors within the same 7 years, sucked gas (less than 12 mpg on a vehicle
>>>> with a ~19-second quarter-mile time), terrible seats that the upholstery
>>>> wore through in less than 8 years, almost no suspension dampening, and
>>>> fueling that get the car to lurch out into an intersection, then stall.
>>>
>>> I hate to say this, but that is pretty much typical of all American cars
>>>from that era, which was by far the nadir of American auto manufacture.
>>> It took being clobbered in their own market by the Japanese for any of
>>> the American manufacturers to take notice at just how badly their quality
>>> control had become.
>>>
>>> Lee Iacocca's book is worth reading for some discussion of what went wrong
>>> at Chrysler specifically and what was done about it.
>>> --scott
>>
>> Pretty much true, Goes back earlier actually. l was lucky and only
>> got "burned" a bit with bad rusting on a '74 Dart, which was otherwise
>> a decent car.
>> Because I had a lot of kids, I only had a '76 Caprice and a '78
>> Beauville Van in the from the 70's. Both treated me right, because of
>> solid 350's. Bought them in the early '80's.
>> Wait, there was a '72 Nova in there. Probably my least favorite car.
>> Quick, but tinny. 307, and only car that burned a valve on me.
>> I abused it.
>> Throw-away car, but didn't pay much for it used. Had it maybe a year.
>> Jap cars did a lot for me. Made used GM's real cheap.
>> When you get down to it, there were always some good cars to select
>> from, just not many. The selection happened to suit me fine.
>> Didn't want a Camry/Corolla or a Accord/Civic. Don't spend a lot on
>> cars, and they were bad values for me, beside's being unsuitably
>> small.
>>
> On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
> early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
> steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
> poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
> to boot.
>
> By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>
> Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
> contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?

Never heard of it.

But those 70s and even early 80s Hondas and such were eaten alive by
road salt. They didn't last very long. That horrible detroit iron of the
70s was still a common sight into the 1990s before fading away.

On 12/3/2013 5:29 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2013-12-03, T0m $herman > wrote:
>> On 12/2/2013 6:43 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2013 16:19:46 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> How much do Dodge vehicles differ from Plymouth vehicles of the same
>>>>> era? Our family inherited a 1975 Plymouth Gran Fury in the late 1970's,
>>>>> and that was one of the worst pieces of automotive excrement to ever
>>>>> leave a factory. Poor engine reliability (first engine replaced under
>>>>> warranty at 10K miles), terrible rust proofing (by the time the car was
>>>>> 7 years old, the trunk was unusable due to rust holes), lots of air
>>>>> leaks around the doors, door handle hardware partially failed on all
>>>>> doors within the same 7 years, sucked gas (less than 12 mpg on a vehicle
>>>>> with a ~19-second quarter-mile time), terrible seats that the upholstery
>>>>> wore through in less than 8 years, almost no suspension dampening, and
>>>>> fueling that get the car to lurch out into an intersection, then stall.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to say this, but that is pretty much typical of all American cars
>>> >from that era, which was by far the nadir of American auto manufacture.
>>>> It took being clobbered in their own market by the Japanese for any of
>>>> the American manufacturers to take notice at just how badly their quality
>>>> control had become.
>>>>
>>>> Lee Iacocca's book is worth reading for some discussion of what went wrong
>>>> at Chrysler specifically and what was done about it.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> Pretty much true, Goes back earlier actually. l was lucky and only
>>> got "burned" a bit with bad rusting on a '74 Dart, which was otherwise
>>> a decent car.
>>> Because I had a lot of kids, I only had a '76 Caprice and a '78
>>> Beauville Van in the from the 70's. Both treated me right, because of
>>> solid 350's. Bought them in the early '80's.
>>> Wait, there was a '72 Nova in there. Probably my least favorite car.
>>> Quick, but tinny. 307, and only car that burned a valve on me.
>>> I abused it.
>>> Throw-away car, but didn't pay much for it used. Had it maybe a year.
>>> Jap cars did a lot for me. Made used GM's real cheap.
>>> When you get down to it, there were always some good cars to select
>>> from, just not many. The selection happened to suit me fine.
>>> Didn't want a Camry/Corolla or a Accord/Civic. Don't spend a lot on
>>> cars, and they were bad values for me, beside's being unsuitably
>>> small.
>>>
>> On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
>> early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
>> steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
>> poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
>> to boot.
>>
>> By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>>
>> Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
>> contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?
>
> Never heard of it.
>
> But those 70s and even early 80s Hondas and such were eaten alive by
> road salt. They didn't last very long. That horrible detroit iron of the
> 70s was still a common sight into the 1990s before fading away.
>
>
Do you consider the trunk becoming useless in less than 5 years due to
rust to be good - happened on both a 1973 Valiant and a 1976 Gran Fury?

Happy that those vehicles are gone - most were about as attractive as a
lamprey. Unfortunately, intentionally ugly/nasty vehicles have come
back into fashion.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 12/3/2013 8:38 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:30:44 -0600, "T0m $herman"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
>> early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
>> steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
>> poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
>> to boot.
>>
>
> Compared to what and to whom? Never had such issues with my '70's
> cars.
>
You must have low standards for vehicle design.

Find me a 1970's Detroit vehicle that would be fun to drive around a
race track with no modifications other than shaved tires.

>> By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>>
>
> If you wanted an Accord, I suppose. But that thought never entered
> my mind, seeing as Honda had no equivalent for a '76 Caprice or '78
> Beauville Van.

Soichiro Honda would have committed seppuku before allowing such
atrocities to leave one of his factories.

Although the van was by far the better vehicle, since as a truck the
suspension could not be made overly flaccid. For similar reasons the
C-series had good space efficiency, and were spared the horrors of
over-styling. But still, I would much rather have a Honda Deauville
over a Chevy Beauville (and I have extensive experience with both).

> Accord wasn't what I required for hauling a wife and 5 kids.
>
I would have got a vasectomy way before number 5.

>> Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
>> contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?
>
> Nope.
>
Pretty funny that the top of the line Detroit "pony car" got waxed by a
Japanese "econobox".

--
T0m $herm@n

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:48:31 -0600, "T0m $herman"
> wrote:

>On 12/3/2013 8:38 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:30:44 -0600, "T0m $herman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
>>> early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
>>> steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
>>> poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
>>> to boot.
>>>
>>
>> Compared to what and to whom? Never had such issues with my '70's
>> cars.
>>
>You must have low standards for vehicle design.
>
>Find me a 1970's Detroit vehicle that would be fun to drive around a
>race track with no modifications other than shaved tires.
>

Well, I never did that. Just drove on streets and highways.
Always do, so I have no need for a race car.


>>> By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>>>
>>
>> If you wanted an Accord, I suppose. But that thought never entered
>> my mind, seeing as Honda had no equivalent for a '76 Caprice or '78
>> Beauville Van.
>
>Soichiro Honda would have committed seppuku before allowing such
>atrocities to leave one of his factories.
>

Afraid I would commit suicide if all I had squeeze 7 people into an
Accord.

>Although the van was by far the better vehicle, since as a truck the
>suspension could not be made overly flaccid. For similar reasons the
>C-series had good space efficiency, and were spared the horrors of
>over-styling. But still, I would much rather have a Honda Deauville
>over a Chevy Beauville (and I have extensive experience with both).
>
>> Accord wasn't what I required for hauling a wife and 5 kids.
>>
>I would have got a vasectomy way before number 5.
>
>>> Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
>>> contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>Pretty funny that the top of the line Detroit "pony car" got waxed by a
>Japanese "econobox".

Never cared about Ford or Honda, so I can't share your amusement.

On 12/3/2013 9:16 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:48:31 -0600, "T0m $herman"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2013 8:38 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:30:44 -0600, "T0m $herman"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to
>>>> early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor
>>>> steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping,
>>>> poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous
>>>> to boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Compared to what and to whom? Never had such issues with my '70's
>>> cars.
>>>
>> You must have low standards for vehicle design.
>>
>> Find me a 1970's Detroit vehicle that would be fun to drive around a
>> race track with no modifications other than shaved tires.
>>
>
> Well, I never did that. Just drove on streets and highways.
> Always do, so I have no need for a race car.
>
Do you live in a place where the roads are all straight too?
>
>>>> By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you wanted an Accord, I suppose. But that thought never entered
>>> my mind, seeing as Honda had no equivalent for a '76 Caprice or '78
>>> Beauville Van.
>>
>> Soichiro Honda would have committed seppuku before allowing such
>> atrocities to leave one of his factories.
>>
>
> Afraid I would commit suicide if all I had squeeze 7 people into an
> Accord.
>
Roof rack, dude!

If it worked for Mitt Romney...

>> Although the van was by far the better vehicle, since as a truck the
>> suspension could not be made overly flaccid. For similar reasons the
>> C-series had good space efficiency, and were spared the horrors of
>> over-styling. But still, I would much rather have a Honda Deauville
>> over a Chevy Beauville (and I have extensive experience with both).
>>
>>> Accord wasn't what I required for hauling a wife and 5 kids.
>>>
>> I would have got a vasectomy way before number 5.
>>
>>>> Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the
>>>> contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>> Pretty funny that the top of the line Detroit "pony car" got waxed by a
>> Japanese "econobox".
>
> Never cared about Ford or Honda, so I can't share your amusement.
>
Well, as Gerald Ford said, "I'm no Lincoln".

--
T0m $herm@n

T0m $herman > wrote:
>On 12/3/2013 5:29 PM, Brent wrote:
>>
>> But those 70s and even early 80s Hondas and such were eaten alive by
>> road salt. They didn't last very long. That horrible detroit iron of the
>> 70s was still a common sight into the 1990s before fading away.
>>
>Do you consider the trunk becoming useless in less than 5 years due to
>rust to be good - happened on both a 1973 Valiant and a 1976 Gran Fury?

The thing about those old American cars was they had enough metal in them
that even though they were rusting and falling apart they were still
drivable. This was not the case for the Japanese products.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:51:36 -0600, "T0m $herman"
> wrote:


>>
>> Well, I never did that. Just drove on streets and highways.
>> Always do, so I have no need for a race car.
>>
>Do you live in a place where the roads are all straight too?
>>

Yes, Chicago. But the main thing has always "size." Before I married
I drove a '64 Bug and a '67 Squareback.
Believe it or not Honda/Toyota had never even been a consideration
for me. First due to size and, later due to size and value.
Different strokes I guess. Being a used car only buyer, and able to
do most maintenance, I've never had an issue finding "good" cars.
By "good" I mean reliable, economical and nice to drive.
As far as "esoteric" performance stats, they've been acceptable.
I learn the car's limits, and stay within them.
Learned that early, when I totaled my first car running a slight
unbanked curve at 105mph. Wouldn't take it, was gonna flip, and I was
forced to straighten the wheel and go off-road. Totaled, and I won't
recount the other damage. It was amazing nobody was hurt, beyond my
black eye. 1961 Pontiac Ventura. So I learned early that all cars
have their limitations, and after that never exceeded them.
Takes some discipline, but I'm not speed or performance guy.

>>
>> Afraid I would commit suicide if all I had squeeze 7 people into an
>> Accord.
>>
>Roof rack, dude!
>

hehe.

On 4 Dec 2013 10:04:15 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>T0m $herman > wrote:
>>On 12/3/2013 5:29 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> But those 70s and even early 80s Hondas and such were eaten alive by
>>> road salt. They didn't last very long. That horrible detroit iron of the
>>> 70s was still a common sight into the 1990s before fading away.
>>>
>>Do you consider the trunk becoming useless in less than 5 years due to
>>rust to be good - happened on both a 1973 Valiant and a 1976 Gran Fury?
>
>The thing about those old American cars was they had enough metal in them
>that even though they were rusting and falling apart they were still
>drivable. This was not the case for the Japanese products.
>--scott

My '74 Dart was an exception to that. When the trunk went, the rear
leaf spring mounts were about to go too.
Junked it then.

"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:51:36 -0600, "T0m $herman"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Well, I never did that. Just drove on streets and highways.
>>> Always do, so I have no need for a race car.
>
>>Do you live in a place where the roads are all straight too?
>
> Yes, Chicago. But the main thing has always "size." Before I married
> I drove a '64 Bug and a '67 Squareback.
> Believe it or not Honda/Toyota had never even been a consideration
> for me. First due to size and, later due to size and value.
> Different strokes I guess. Being a used car only buyer, and able to
> do most maintenance, I've never had an issue finding "good" cars.
> By "good" I mean reliable, economical and nice to drive.
> As far as "esoteric" performance stats, they've been acceptable.
> I learn the car's limits, and stay within them.
> Learned that early, when I totaled my first car running a slight
> unbanked curve at 105mph. Wouldn't take it, was gonna flip, and I was
> forced to straighten the wheel and go off-road. Totaled, and I won't
> recount the other damage. It was amazing nobody was hurt, beyond my
> black eye. 1961 Pontiac Ventura. So I learned early that all cars
> have their limitations, and after that never exceeded them.
> Takes some discipline, but I'm not speed or performance guy.
>
>>> Afraid I would commit suicide if all I had squeeze 7 people into an
>>> Accord.
>
>>Roof rack, dude!
>
> hehe.

You've owned a '64 Bug and yet find Hondas/
Toyotas unacceptable due to size and value???