Consumer Reports rates minivans

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> The wife's 2003 Dodge Stratus is pretty bad too...one can hardly see the
> red turn signal when the brake lights are also lit. Now my 2004 Sebring
> (basically the same car) has amber rear signals...it makes all the
> difference in the world! Those you *can* see very clearly regardless if
> the brake lights are lit or not.

NHTSA (the DOT) says "Automakers prefer to have the choice of color. Show
us a pile of dead bodies from red signals, heh heh heh, and we'll consider
mandating them, heh heh heh."

Ford and GM say "There's no proof amber signals are better" (despite GM
having specifically illustrated the amber signals on the new-for-'01 Chev
truck in the promotional brochure and expounded on their "clearer
signal").

American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals."

Art wrote:

> Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though if
> you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler the
> nod. The Chrysler did not do as well as Honda and Toyota on the drivetrain,
> noise and ride.

CR are idiots. Always have been, show no signs of changing.

Bill Putney wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet
>> until the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then
>> it got very noisy. My Grand Voyager is a little noisier than the
>> Honda was when new, but it hasn't become appreciably more noisy in
>> 162,000 miles!
>
>
> So what'd they do - use the old GM technique of nitriding the cams?
> Works great until the super-hard but micro-thin nitride layer wears thru
> (at around 70 to 110k miles), then wears like butter.
>


Doubtful, roller cams in general are made of different materials with
different hardening processes than were used on slider cams. They
probably made a New and Better mistake (tm). After all, Honda would HAVE
to make a BETTER mistake than GM! :-p

I know not all Honda buyers are jerks, but I sure seem to find the ones
that are and it serves them right. I had one accost me in my daughter's
school parking lot a couple of years ago because I had a "Built when
cars were made to LAST!" window sticker in my '66 Dodge (Kanter auto
products used to send them out in their parts orders). He started
blathering about how he had 150,000 miles on his Accord and how cars now
last SOOOO much longer than they used to, so I just said
"congratulations! Thats really great you got so much out of that car!
You're almost HALFWAY to the mileage on this one!" I didn't bother to
tell him that he was less than a third of the way to the mileage on my
'73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p

Bill 2 wrote:

>
> Yet without those, for years the Caravan always had high marks for very
> "car-like" feel.

Oh, but a solid axle is OLD tech! Yuck! :-p
>
> As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in their
> time,

Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head
gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold,
Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company
until then.

Richard wrote:

>>"Richard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to
>>>superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor,
>>>independent rear suspension and a next generation automatic transmission.
>>>
>>>On my personal list:
>>>
>>>1. Amber rear turn lights.
>>>2. Truly superior headlights
>>>3. A CD changer that recognizes DVD-R and RW disks,
>>>digital AM and FM, and a multi-channel decoder for SACD/DVD-A/MP3 and
>>>WMP.
>>>4. A switch back to decent tires or something like Michlin HydroEdge or
>>>Goodyear TripleTred tires.
>>>
>>>Honda will then eat its dust.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> "Art" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Is this actually going to happen?
>>
>
> We since Chrysler just pulled out the duel function duel bulb red rear
> lights for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function; to save a few
> cents, I would not hold my breath

This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals!
Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high
confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on
when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal. With a
single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for
redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one
side, so at least there's no confusion factor and you still have at
least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL). That's how
all 60s and 70s cars worked, the duelling-red crap came about after
wiring harnesses were converted to support amber-turn, red-brake
separate functions but people disliked the look of amber turn signals
and the carmakers took the cheap way of going back to all red.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>The wife's 2003 Dodge Stratus is pretty bad too...one can hardly see the
>>red turn signal when the brake lights are also lit. Now my 2004 Sebring
>>(basically the same car) has amber rear signals...it makes all the
>>difference in the world! Those you *can* see very clearly regardless if
>>the brake lights are lit or not.
>
>
> NHTSA (the DOT) says "Automakers prefer to have the choice of color. Show
> us a pile of dead bodies from red signals, heh heh heh, and we'll consider
> mandating them, heh heh heh."
>
> Ford and GM say "There's no proof amber signals are better" (despite GM
> having specifically illustrated the amber signals on the new-for-'01 Chev
> truck in the promotional brochure and expounded on their "clearer
> signal").
>
> American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals."
>
>

And I'd argue that the advantage of amber over red was very VERY small,
UNTIL the duelling-red implementations came out. Then it became huge.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet until
>>> the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then it got
>>> very noisy. My Grand Voyager is a little noisier than the Honda was
>>> when new, but it hasn't become appreciably more noisy in 162,000 miles!
>>
>>
>> So what'd they do - use the old GM technique of nitriding the cams? Works
>> great until the super-hard but micro-thin nitride layer wears thru (at
>> around 70 to 110k miles), then wears like butter.
>>
>
>
> Doubtful, roller cams in general are made of different materials with
> different hardening processes than were used on slider cams. They probably
> made a New and Better mistake (tm). After all, Honda would HAVE to make a
> BETTER mistake than GM! :-p
>
> I know not all Honda buyers are jerks, but I sure seem to find the ones
> that are and it serves them right. I had one accost me in my daughter's
> school parking lot a couple of years ago because I had a "Built when cars
> were made to LAST!" window sticker in my '66 Dodge (Kanter auto products
> used to send them out in their parts orders). He started blathering about
> how he had 150,000 miles on his Accord and how cars now last SOOOO much
> longer than they used to, so I just said "congratulations! Thats really
> great you got so much out of that car! You're almost HALFWAY to the
> mileage on this one!" I didn't bother to tell him that he was less than a
> third of the way to the mileage on my '73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to
> the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p

I agree, not all are jerks, but I've found quite a few that are. Not just
Hondas, but import drivers in general. Even those driving VW / Kia trash.

Funny thing, I've also noticed that in a crowded parking lot, people that
are most likely to illegally park in "in the way" places tend to drive
import cars.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Steve wrote:

> > Chrysler just pulled out the duel function duel bulb red rear lights
> > for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function

> This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals!

Agree.

> Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high
> confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on
> when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal.

Agree.

> With a single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for
> redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one
> side, so at least there's no confusion factor

Well...much *less* confusion factor.

> and you still have at
> least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL).

Which is fine when traffic density and speeds are low enough that you can
see more than one rear lamp assembly. Let traffic density and/or speeds
increase to points they often reach, let the CHMSL burn out, you only get
to see the left or the right, and then it's "Um...red light just came
on...is it a brake light? Is it a turn signal?". This is a bigger problem
up here where the roads get slick than down there where it's not, 'cause
people tend to get on and off the brake rapidly (whether or not they're
deliberately pumping the pedal).

> That's how all 60s and 70s cars worked,

Not the Checker.

> the duelling-red crap came about after wiring harnesses were converted
> to support amber-turn, red-brake separate functions

Naw, I don't think this is really what happened. Many of the cars that use
duelling reds are not sold in any variant form anywhere amber is required.
I think in many cases it's just a styling gimmick.

> but people disliked the look of amber turn signals

I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Steve wrote:

> Bill 2 wrote:

> > As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in
> > their time,

> Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head
> gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold,
> Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company
> until then.

*cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough*

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals
>
>
> I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care.

A lot of people do, look a the proliferation of "M3" style aftermarket
taillights (look stock but with clear lens turn signal segments) for a
wide variety of cars. I would count myself among the group that thinks
they look better. Too many colors on the rear of a car makes it look
too busy IMHO.

Of course, there's also the proliferation of "Altezza" style taillights
which proves another point, that a good number of people have no sense
of style whatsoever.

nate

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