American vs German Quality

Bill 2 wrote:


> OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy
> engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're
> making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car,
> and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to
> say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping
> out?

The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for
YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993)
and since they quit using Mitsu****ti engines.

Bill 2 wrote:


> OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy
> engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're
> making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car,
> and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to
> say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping
> out?

The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for
YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993)
and since they quit using Mitsu****ti engines.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used
> > against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability.
>
> Neither does GM.

Agreed.

> > OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same
crappy
> > engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way
you're
> > making assumptions.
>
> ...based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Contrary to your belief,
the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles (although they may lack
"refinement"). Some models of North American Escort were pretty reliable.
Focus isn't bad (although it is based on European design). The F-150 isn't
bad.

> > Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has
> > been pumping out?
>
> Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's
> over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash
> after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially
> and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable,
> good cars.

So there's no guarantee that it won't be garbage.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used
> > against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability.
>
> Neither does GM.

Agreed.

> > OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same
crappy
> > engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way
you're
> > making assumptions.
>
> ...based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Contrary to your belief,
the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles (although they may lack
"refinement"). Some models of North American Escort were pretty reliable.
Focus isn't bad (although it is based on European design). The F-150 isn't
bad.

> > Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has
> > been pumping out?
>
> Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's
> over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash
> after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially
> and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable,
> good cars.

So there's no guarantee that it won't be garbage.

Bill 2 wrote:


> 500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in
> common with the versions they replaced.

I'm willing to grant you that the 500 is more differentiated from the
Taurus than has been implied... but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is
to the Taurus as the 300C is to the 300M. There's NOTHING in common
between a 300C and a 300M, chassis or engine-wise. Now if you want to
talk about the current 300 (no "C") then yes, the very nice 3.5L engine
is shared between the two. But not even the new 300's transmission is
the same as the 300M's 42LE. Related, yes. Same, no. And in the case of
the 300C, its not even related (though time has not yet told if that is
a good thing- I have complete confidence in the later production 42LE,
but the Stuttgart-designed / Kokomo-built nightmare in the 300C appears
far to complicated for its own good if you ask me.

Bill 2 wrote:


> 500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in
> common with the versions they replaced.

I'm willing to grant you that the 500 is more differentiated from the
Taurus than has been implied... but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is
to the Taurus as the 300C is to the 300M. There's NOTHING in common
between a 300C and a 300M, chassis or engine-wise. Now if you want to
talk about the current 300 (no "C") then yes, the very nice 3.5L engine
is shared between the two. But not even the new 300's transmission is
the same as the 300M's 42LE. Related, yes. Same, no. And in the case of
the 300C, its not even related (though time has not yet told if that is
a good thing- I have complete confidence in the later production 42LE,
but the Stuttgart-designed / Kokomo-built nightmare in the 300C appears
far to complicated for its own good if you ask me.

In fact Clarkson makes a point of using and emphasizing national
stereotypes. It's so easy. Some months ago an article drew readers'
letters saying he had taken his foreigner-bashing (Americans in this case)
too far.

Today I watched a video picked off the Top Gear site I referenced about a
race Jeremy Clarkson organised between the new Aston-Martin DB9 and the
train, from London to Monte Carlo.

Clarkson was driving the DB9...in an otherwise enjoyable clip I found his
frequent references to Frenchies not very nice.


Of course there are many possible real reasons why quality is poor. Here's
a thing: the vast majority of the workforce in Merc's main plant in
Stuttgart is/was of Turkish origin. When I did my works tour in the mid-80s
there weren't all these quality issues, so it had little to so with the work
force.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
.net...
[...]

> Clarkson's stereotypes attached to the Alabama workers were intriguing,
> but
> the main reason for poor quality of the M-Class is probably that the plant
> isn't run all that well, and that Mercedes made some poor choices of
> suppliers for pre-made assemblies, such as the instrument panels.
>
>

In fact Clarkson makes a point of using and emphasizing national
stereotypes. It's so easy. Some months ago an article drew readers'
letters saying he had taken his foreigner-bashing (Americans in this case)
too far.

Today I watched a video picked off the Top Gear site I referenced about a
race Jeremy Clarkson organised between the new Aston-Martin DB9 and the
train, from London to Monte Carlo.

Clarkson was driving the DB9...in an otherwise enjoyable clip I found his
frequent references to Frenchies not very nice.


Of course there are many possible real reasons why quality is poor. Here's
a thing: the vast majority of the workforce in Merc's main plant in
Stuttgart is/was of Turkish origin. When I did my works tour in the mid-80s
there weren't all these quality issues, so it had little to so with the work
force.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
.net...
[...]

> Clarkson's stereotypes attached to the Alabama workers were intriguing,
> but
> the main reason for poor quality of the M-Class is probably that the plant
> isn't run all that well, and that Mercedes made some poor choices of
> suppliers for pre-made assemblies, such as the instrument panels.
>
>

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

surveyed in the UK, the M-Class was BOTTOM for reliability.
>
> Clarkson gives two reasons ..."appalling dealer network but also because
> it's made in Alabama, where the locals are good at picking cotton, singing
> mournful songs and listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd but not so good at attaching
> complicated pieces of machinery to one another."
>

Clarkson is a narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted, addlepated asswipe if
that's what he thinks. And I'm not even FROM Alabama.

The M-class stinks because its a wretchedly pitiful engineering design,
not because of where its built. Why it remained in production as long
after the merger as it did remains a mystery to me- Mercedes would have
avoided the beating over inadequate offroad capability AND poor
reliability if they had just slapped a 3-pointed star and rock-hard
black leather seats in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and called it an M400 or
M470 (depending on engine). Its gotta be embarassing when the low-tech
solid-axle corporate sibling kicks your fancy design's butt in every
quantifiable test ever devised.

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

surveyed in the UK, the M-Class was BOTTOM for reliability.
>
> Clarkson gives two reasons ..."appalling dealer network but also because
> it's made in Alabama, where the locals are good at picking cotton, singing
> mournful songs and listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd but not so good at attaching
> complicated pieces of machinery to one another."
>

Clarkson is a narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted, addlepated asswipe if
that's what he thinks. And I'm not even FROM Alabama.

The M-class stinks because its a wretchedly pitiful engineering design,
not because of where its built. Why it remained in production as long
after the merger as it did remains a mystery to me- Mercedes would have
avoided the beating over inadequate offroad capability AND poor
reliability if they had just slapped a 3-pointed star and rock-hard
black leather seats in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and called it an M400 or
M470 (depending on engine). Its gotta be embarassing when the low-tech
solid-axle corporate sibling kicks your fancy design's butt in every
quantifiable test ever devised.