Bias Against Domestic Cars

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:53:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:12:10 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Canuck57" > wrote in message news:tES1n.4860
>>>
>>> I bet most Toyota's don't even make them too the lot, family hand me
>>> downs. Parents drive it for 14 years and 200,000 on the odo then give it
>>> to the kids or keep it as a second car.
>>
>>I have been trying to help a friend find one for his wife for the last month
>>or so. Within a 200 mile search radius, there has been nothing on the
>>market recently.
>>
>>He wanted a minivan or SUV for her. There are of course Chrysler products
>>and some GM.
>
>
>Go look at a PT cruiser. You can get them new cheap and they are
>quite nice inside. Has all the utility of an SUV. You save enough
>money on the purchase price to more then pay for an extended warranty
>if you want one.
I like mine, but for a little 2.4 4banger it is a bit thirsty.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:11:46 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> Go look at a PT cruiser. You can get them new cheap and they are
>> quite nice inside. Has all the utility of an SUV. You save enough
>> money on the purchase price to more then pay for an extended warranty
>> if you want one.
>
>Got one of those as a rental once. What a horrible vehicle.
Horrible how?
Love mine.

Where were you dr_jeff in the fifties when Ford was adding new safety
equipment like recessed steering wheels, a padded dash and seat belts to it
cars?

Where you there in the early seventies when the Senate hearing were taking
place? I was and what I posted was factual.

However as always you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, no
mater how convoluted your reasoning. LOL


"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Once again you are wrong. The auto manufactures were not against
>> government safety and environmental standards, because ALL manufactures
>> would need to comply with the safety and environmental standards and the
>> playing field wound be equal.
>
> Wrong. The automakers regularly lobby against environmental and safety
> standards.
>
>> What they were tiring
>
> Why are they getting tired? Working too hard?
>
>> to prevent was being forced to comply with BOTH the safety and
>> environmental standards, simultaneously, in a limited time period!
>>
>> To make cars safer we would be required to add weight, yet to meet the
>> CAFE standards we would be required to REDUCE WEIGHT. The result was
>> years of jury rigged old technology until better things could be
>> engineered
>>
>> Henry ford II testified before the Senate that if they needed to do both
>> at the same time, a 1971 Pinto with a base price was $1,995, would double
>> in price in price in three years. Some Senators laughed. I tuned out
>> Henry ford II was wrong, in four year the 1975 Pinto price was $4,995.
>>
>> Had the government given us time to do both, over time rather than
>> meeting dates certain, we would have had the safer, more fuel efficient
>> cars we have today, ten to fifteen years SOONER.
>>
>> The same tactic of the government requirement for meeting new regulations
>> by dates certain, was why we had gasket and paint problem with ever brand
>> car built in the US a few years later.
>>
>> By making gasket manufactures and paint manufactures meet dates certain,
>> they did not have enough time to field test new casket materials and new
>> paint formulas. That led to gaskets failing and paint blowing off cars
>> made in the US.
>>
>> But then again it is not difficult to see why you would not understand
>> these basic differences, you are a teacher not an automotive engineer.
>
> Thanks for the personal attack!
>> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message safety and environmental
>> standardsnews8qdnYhj4YQA9tXWnZ2dnUVZ_vVi4p2d@gig anews.com...
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2010 9:16 PM, dr_jeff wrote:
>>>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/01/2010 6:28 PM, dr_jeff wrote:
>>>>>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2010 11:33 AM, Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That may be your opinion but one would suggest that your stop by
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>> GM, or other domestic dealership, and count all of the so called
>>>>>>>>> superior
>>>>>>>>> imports you see on their use car lots, that were traded in for a
>>>>>>>>> domestic
>>>>>>>>> brand.
>>>>>>>> It is his opinion, but he isn't alone. My last GM experience was my
>>>>>>>> last. I will not even rent-lease one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have previously bought two made in Japan vehicles when they were
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>> over there. Both were first class.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I suspect this is mute. With Americans earning less, if they
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> a job in a crappy economy, they will also buy less expensive GM
>>>>>>>> crap
>>>>>>>> and put pressure on getting Hyndai, Tata and other truly green
>>>>>>>> cars.
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "truly green cars"? And how do Hyndai and Tata
>>>>>>> qualify?
>>>>>> Green as in green in my pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets face it, if a Tata Nano at $3700 loaded with A?C etc dies
>>>>>> completely in 5 years, that is a mere $61.66 a month in TCO for
>>>>>> capital cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GM Volt at say $40,000 by the same depreciation would have to last 54
>>>>>> years. And I can assure you a Volt will not last near that long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget car payments, buy a Tata Nano. Even gets 52 mpg city, 61
>>>>>> highway and holds 4 imperial gallons (5 US gallons). Not a big cost
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> fill up. I wouldn't even doubt in a REAL driving test, on a 400 mile
>>>>>> hiway run the Nano is easier on gas than the Volt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Factor in the Volts need for new batteries every year at what? $4000
>>>>>> or 5000 per pop? Plus tilities and 2 drives to maintain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Volt is a stupid priced and GM has a pretty bad small car record.
>>>>>> Firenza or Geo anyone?
>>>>> A GM is much safer. And the Tata will never make US environmental
>>>>> standards.
>>>> You mean D3 auto puts enough cash in every senator, govenor, and every
>>>> congress persons pocket to make sure they done get into the US (or
>>>> Canada) as a protectionist move. They already do if for many an Asian
>>>> comapnies.
>>> I see what you mean. Those companies with names like Toyota, Honda,
>>> Suzuki, Kia and Mazda have never entered the US market.
>>>
>>> Actually I mean the safety and environmental standards that keep our air
>>> and waterways clean, and our highways safer. These are the same
>>> standards that the auto makers argued against.
>>>
>>>> But it will not last. The new economy isn't paying people enough after
>>>> taxes to keep GM & Chrysler in a fashion they are accustomed too. And
>>>> sooner or later government is going to rebel on GM as its insatiable
>>>> blood sucking of public debt raised cash is going to get very
>>>> unpopular.
>>> Keep up the positive attitude for that company that says that it will be
>>> making money within a year or two.
>>>
>>> jeff
>>

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:11:46 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> Go look at a PT cruiser. You can get them new cheap and they are
>> quite nice inside. Has all the utility of an SUV. You save enough
>> money on the purchase price to more then pay for an extended warranty
>> if you want one.
>
>Got one of those as a rental once. What a horrible vehicle.

Mine is great except it's only got modest power. Just was in a Camry
today and frankly, except for the wonderful V6 in the Camry there was
nothing nicer about it then my PT. The second Gen PTs (2005 and up I
think) are noticeably better then the first Gen.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

>> Got one of those as a rental once. What a horrible vehicle.
>
> Mine is great except it's only got modest power.

I think "modest power" is somewhat of an understatement. Compared to a 4
cylinder Camry it's a dog. Accelerating onto I-95 in Florida was terrifying.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:24:55 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>>> Got one of those as a rental once. What a horrible vehicle.
>>
>> Mine is great except it's only got modest power.
>
>I think "modest power" is somewhat of an understatement. Compared to a 4
>cylinder Camry it's a dog. Accelerating onto I-95 in Florida was terrifying.
with 4 adults and luggage it was Not fast - but it handled the hills
of Cape Breton and Vermont very capably
Flprida is Nothing - it's FLAT

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:24:55 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>>> Got one of those as a rental once. What a horrible vehicle.
>>
>> Mine is great except it's only got modest power.
>
>I think "modest power" is somewhat of an understatement. Compared to a 4
>cylinder Camry it's a dog. Accelerating onto I-95 in Florida was terrifying.

Camry is about 10 seconds 0 - 60, the PT about 11

It's adequate for it's purpose and in what I consider "normal" driving
I'm the fastest away from the light almost all the time, not because
I'm trying to race, I just don't like starting up slow. I'm not
saying the other vehicles couldn't beat me if we were racing, but very
few people ever accelerate faster then a sloth and the PT can easily
keep up.

This is such a broad question with many considerations to view from. In conjunction with many of the answers already said, one that pops up in my mind quickly is that jap. or euro. cars have considerable better resale value rather than american cars.
for those of you that do not know what resale means, think about the word.. "resale". re- means again or over. resale value means how much money you can sell the car..japs. and euros. do not drop that much.