What would cars cost if they left off the silly frills?

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

You know, Laura or Judy or Millie or whateverthehell your name is, I
just posted something like this to the Chrysler group yesterday. Only
difference is I actually meant it instead of just trolling.

> I think an automatic tranny is truly useful

for you, maybe. It's the one frill that really annoys me.

> but power steering, brakes,
> and windows are a joke.

Depends. I personally don't need 'em (example: my '62 Lark) but an
older driver or one with limited upper-body strength might find it
difficult to parallel park without the power steering. Power windows in
some cases, are actually lighter than manual windows - that's the
rationale I've heard for their inclusion on some sports cars.

> Same with tinted glass

Obviously you live somewhere it's never sunny. And if you don't have
air conditioning (you didn't pop for that, obviously, because you're
such a Spartan sort) you'll appreciate every bit of help.

> and fancy paint jobs
> and a million other doodads like the warning light for the windshield
> washer fluid

That one is eminently useful; it keeps one from smearing dirty slush and
road salt all over the windshield. I personally think it's one of the
more useful "gadgets" and it only takes one little level sensor and a
light to make it happen.

> and turn signals emebedded in the side mirrors.

Better would be side repeaters on the fenders as required in Europe, but
it's a step in the right direction. Surely being able to convey your
intentions to those next to you is a Good Thing? But we all know that
you really don't care about meaningful safety improvements and would
rather just hurl semi-coherent invective and preach at everyone to slow
down.

> No
> question to me but that it's a conspiracy. They add all these gadgets
> and make a 30% profit on each one. And more money when the damn things
> go bad .
>
> Most americans are not loonybirds who fall in love with cars. We jsut
> want a vehicle that gets us from A to B and there is no reason why a
> perfectly functional brand new car should cost over $5,000.
>

I bet there is more than $5K in cost in even the most basic of new cars,
but I actually agree with your sentiment (well, except the bit about
falling in love with cars. I mean, if it gets sexual then you have
issues, but there's nothing wrong with a healthy appreciation for a
well-engineered piece of machinery.) Difference is, you and I are
coming at it from different perspectives. I'm a minimalist. You're
just a malcontented moron.

nate

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

On 2005-01-29, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> I think an automatic tranny is truly useful
> for you, maybe. It's the one frill that really annoys me.

The one feature my RX300 has that I wish it didn't is an automatic
transmission. The only vehicle in that class that is offered with a manual
is the BMW X5, and I didn't want to pay more for a heavier vehicle with the
same engine specs.

> Power windows in some cases, are actually lighter than manual windows -
> that's the rationale I've heard for their inclusion on some sports cars.

They can be, because the mechanics don't have to be stressed to handle the
force people can apply to the crank. Most 35mm cameras these days have motor
drives because a motor drive can be made much more cheaply than the manual
wind crank - because they don't have to allow for the human operator jamming
the crank hard.

> The US auto industry has been sucking wind for decades because the
> management at the car companies had a lack of foresight and poor long term
> strategies (GM and Ford falling behind Toyota and Honda on hybrid
> technology, for instance, being the latest example).
>
> Actually, the Japanese are building cars in the US because labor in the
> US
> can be cheaper than in Japan.
>

That's the reason? I thought it was to avoid the import tariffs and freight
charges to move two-ton SUVs halfway around the world. Silly me. -Dave

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I think an automatic tranny is truly useful but power steering, brakes,
> and windows are a joke. Same with tinted glass and fancy paint jobs
> and a million other doodads like the warning light for the windshield
> washer fluid and turn signals emebedded in the side mirrors. No
> question to me but that it's a conspiracy. They add all these gadgets
> and make a 30% profit on each one. And more money when the damn things
> go bad .
>
> Most americans are not loonybirds who fall in love with cars. We jsut
> want a vehicle that gets us from A to B and there is no reason why a
> perfectly functional brand new car should cost over $5,000.

You should restate the question if car companies had FEWER commercials how
much less you would pay for an automobile.
It seems like you can never go through a day without encountering automobile
advertising whether it is on TV, radio, printed media, etc.
My rant
(scroll to Some commercials)
http://www.jungworld.com/rants/media.htm


--
Andy P. Jung
Metairie, Louisiana U.S.A.
(Home of Senator David Vitter)
http://www.JungWorld.com/

To reply via e-mail, please visit my web site.

"Sherman Cahal" > wrote:

wrote:
>> By the way, if you want to know why brand new cars are so expensive,
>as
>> well as why jobs are going overseas, talk to a union employee.
>
>Please cite where automotive jobs are going overseas. The opposite has
>occured -- foreign auto manufacturers are investing on US soil. Toyota
>and Hyundai are two major examples.

Actually, they are assembly plants. The parts are mostly being made
overseas and shipped here instead of sending the finished vehicles
over on a ship.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >> I think an automatic tranny is truly useful
>
> > for you, maybe. It's the one frill that really annoys me.
>
> The one feature my RX300 has that I wish it didn't is an automatic
> transmission. The only vehicle in that class that is offered with a manual
> is the BMW X5, and I didn't want to pay more for a heavier vehicle with the
> same engine specs.

I used to drive only manual transmission cars from 1968-1990, but all
the cars I've had since 1990 have had an automatic transmission. I
bought the manuals on the precept that they were cheaper to maintain and
led to better fuel mileage, which was true at one time, but automatics
have gotten better and better over the years.

The cars with automatics all got good fuel mileage (current car 2003
Buick LeSabre gets 28 mpg on highway and 22 mpg on city streets), and
the only transmission work I've ever needed was a fluid change about
every 50,000 miles or so. Major transmission problems (major overhaul
needed) led to the trading of one car, but the car had over 140,000
miles on it, so I pretty well got my money's worth out of that car.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"me" > wrote in message
news:f784$41fb72f8$d841aa17$27088@allthenewsgroups .com...

> > Or a Big Wheel.
>
> I'm sure a big wheel is even too much for the OP to handle ;^)

Agreed.

>OG Loc Jan 29, 12:53 am

>Agreed. And power steering and brakes are important safety =ADfeatures


They're useless on cars that weigh under 3000 pounds and that should be
the max weight for a non-business vehicle.

>Nate Nagel Jan 29, 4:01 am

>Obviously you live somewhere it's never sunny. And if you d=ADon't
have
>air conditioning (you didn't pop for that, obviously, becaus=ADe you're

>such a Spartan sort) you'll appreciate every bit of help.


BS. I lived in hot muggy sothern illinois for a long time and although
my cars came with AC (i bought them used) i never used the AC. Just
roll down the damn window.

>Scott M. Kozel Jan 29, 6:37 am

>I used to drive only manual transmission cars from 1968-1990=AD, but
all
the cars I've had since 1990 have had an automatic transmiss=ADion. I
bought the manuals on the precept that they were cheaper to =ADmaintain
and
led to better fuel mileage, which was true at one time, but
=ADautomatics
have gotten better and better over the years.


Yup - even though an AT is much more complicated than an MT, it has
fewer things go wrong. I guess because in an AT there is no meshing
and unmeshing of gears. And you don't have the damn clutch wearing out
every 10,000 miles. Keep an AT full of fluid and it will last forever.