Hot Asian Cars, Designed In Detroit

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:48:07 GMT, who > wrote:

>In article > ,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but
>> over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the
>> start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM cars
>> in a row, I went elsewhere.
>
>The last GM product I had was a long '71 Van.
>Basically solid, but several components I won't go into detail on were
>what I'd call a "Micky Mouse" design. <snip>

Those side doors were legendary for failure, as were the window locks.

>Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically
>solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses.
>-Valve rocker bearings failed many times before a permanent fix. I felt
>like I was part of the GM test group.
>-Leak in the body into the trunk.
>-front brakes seriously affected by water, pulled car abruptly to either
>side; dangerous to drive in wet weather. <snip>

The '62 Chevy II wasn't a a very good car in comparison to the Falcon,
even though the Chevy II had a much larger but obsolete engine, the
235 "Blue Flame," usually saddled with PowerSlide. The Ford was a
weak performer, with the 170 being the largest available and the
equally bad two speed "FoMo" trans. Chrysler had the BEST idea, with
the A-cars, most of which would outlast any Falcon or Chevy II.

>I also had a '70 Datsun 510. It was well designed, but suffered from a
>dealer who was just learning it and a body that rusted in rain faster
>than bare steel. <snip>

The "box," as we called the 510, was well loved by its owners, despite
the usual Japanese bad paint, bad interior and lousy amenities. What
turned people on to it was the Ajin Precision OHC 4, many of which
would turn 300K miles before having to have the head pulled.
>
>Then switched to Chrysler in '79, much better design and quality than
>GM. Improved significantly from '79 to '01- our new car yrs.
> Also very responsive to THEIR problems, until DC took over.
> Now Chrysler have become very evasive and expensive for service and
>have given up building efficient easy to repair vehicles.
>The Caliper may be a return to Chrysler's better past, but just a bit
>too small for me. <snip>

I don't think "Dr. Z" knows what he's doing in the US market. Germans
are genetically programmed to overcomplicate and undersimplify
anything they build, although their technological abilities can be
astounding. German car owners are fastideous about maintenance, while
Americans are idiots who think a car is a "turn key" item that never
needs service, and get riled when someone suggests they need to change
their oil more than once every five years. It's not a good fit at
all.

Chrysler needs to get rid of Daimler and return to what caused their
glory days of the '60s, when superior ruggedness, dependability and
serviceability carried the day. From what I read in here, DC is using
overly complicated and fragile digital control systems similar to the
awful ones used by VW-Audi and BMW, which need frequent
troubleshooting and repair/replacement. Ask any honest Mercedes
owner...those cars are shop queens, and have been for many years, and
it's always niggly LITTLE things going wrong. I'm seeing that a lot
with DC cars now. The troubles with TCMs alone have given DC cars a
black eye with buyers, while the transmissions themselves seem pretty
hardy overall. The "oil sludging" scare now, from what I've seen
lately, is simply a byproduct of the usual American car owners'
negligence, something for which Chrysler designed the K car to
withstand...somewhat. Despite being beat to death, they'd just keep
running!

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:10:48 GMT, who > wrote:

>GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be
>a creative designer there. <snip>

Back in their heyday, whizbang stylist Harley Earle and wizzard
engineer "Boss" Kettering could crank out new designs and styles
whenever they wished. The Corvair "pancake" 6 was a Kettering idea,
but it only took GM 26 years to get it to market!! It took them from
1938 to 1949 to get their first OHV V8s, two separate, competing
projects to market...one by Bennett at Olds, one by Barr and Cole at
Cadillac...although WW II can be blamed for about four years of that
time lag. However, when GM wanted to move fast, they could. "Boss"
Kettering got his EMD 567-series 2 stroke diesels and his smaller GM
Diesel Division (later "Detroit Diesel" after the consent decree in
the '60s) engines to market within 18 months, again with a big push by
Al Sloan at the corporate offices. Both came to market in 1939.

In their consumer car lines, GM only took two years for them to get
the original HydraMatic to market in the '38 Olds. Reason: Sloan
picked the HydraMatic as a pet project to get through the GM central
committees for his then-favorite division, Oldsmobile. Originally,
the HydraMatic was going to go to Buick (where Sloan "grew up" in GM
after being a ball bearing salesman for New Departure), but they
refused, preferring instead to try to downsize the Allison bus
transmission into the Dynaflow...which again took 10 years to get to
market, in 1948! Little did they know that a young John DeLorean was
doing the same thing over at Packard in only 18 months, which resulted
in the Ultramatic, which copied the GM bus transmission right down to
the torque converter clutch (first application of this anywhere, NOT
the Torqueflite of '78) and the four element converter. DeLorean
rushed the Ultramatic into production with one fatal design
flaw...using a bushing with no seal to seal up the torque converter
output shaft, which made the Ultramatic one of the most unreliable
automatic transmissions ever sold. While many blame the demise of
Packard on their continued use of obsolete straight 8 engines while
Olds, Buick and Cadillac had modern, efficient OHV V8s, the Ultramatic
was the last nail in the coffin that sealed their fate. By the time
Packard ponied up their big V8s, it was far too late for them, and
they were gobbled up by the Studebaker family. Meanwhile, DeLorean
had abandoned Packard, and became part of the problem at GM.

Chrysler trivia: The original 318 "A" engine uses the exact same
lifters as the '55-'56 Packard V8s, along with several other piece
parts. Why? Chrysler bought the brand new Packard engine plant from
Studebaker in late '56, complete with tooling. Why reinvent the
wheel? Packard V8 fans routinely rebuild their engines with Chrysler
lifters, wrist pins, valve guides and several other indentical small
parts. Had Packard survived '56 and fixed the Ultramatic disaster,
the Packard V8 would've been a real contender for GM to deal with.

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:

> >Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically
> >solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses.
> >-Valve rocker bearings failed many times before a permanent fix. I felt
> >like I was part of the GM test group.
> >-Leak in the body into the trunk.
> >-front brakes seriously affected by water, pulled car abruptly to either
> >side; dangerous to drive in wet weather. <snip>
>
> The '62 Chevy II wasn't a a very good car in comparison to the Falcon,
> even though the Chevy II had a much larger but obsolete engine, the
> 235 "Blue Flame," usually saddled with PowerSlide. The Ford was a
> weak performer, with the 170 being the largest available and the
> equally bad two speed "FoMo" trans. Chrysler had the BEST idea, with
> the A-cars, most of which would outlast any Falcon or Chevy II.
I disagree with regard to the 6 cyl Chev II I had vs the Falcon.
I had two friends with the Falcon, a much less solid car with a weak
engine. IMO the Falcon was a typical tin can from Ford.
The Chev II gave good fuel mileage, equal to the Falcon.
I pulled a 1,500 lb camping trailer coast to coast and in the western
mountains. About 15,000 miles of towing, in the 95,000 miles I had it.
Standard shift of course, had to double clutch to shift down to the non
syncro low gear on the very steep (logging road class) hills when towing.

I forgot one ugly design build problem I had. Rubber bushings in the
front suspension which wanted to remember where I was. I replaced them
with Teflon ones.
Also had to add a front sway bar as GM didn't install it in my6 cyl
model.
What a huge difference these two simple changes made to steering.
So after I modified GM's partly completed car, it proved a good solid
performer.

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:

> I don't think "Dr. Z" knows what he's doing in the US market. Germans
> are genetically programmed to overcomplicate and undersimplify
> anything they build, although their technological abilities can be
> astounding.
I agree. Have you noticed how much weight Chrysler cars have put on
since Daimler took over.

> Chrysler needs to get rid of Daimler and return to what caused their
> glory days of the '60s, when superior ruggedness, dependability and
> serviceability carried the day.
Well Daimler will have to get rid of Chrysler, but the lower costs from
Chrysler's volume will hold them back.
DC seems to think all Chrysler cars should have a truck front grill.
With the 300 Chrysler did return to the 60s. OK for a few years, but
they lost their steady customers and can't keep the emotional new ones
that bought the 300.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:21:54 GMT, who > wrote:

>I disagree with regard to the 6 cyl Chev II I had vs the Falcon.
>I had two friends with the Falcon, a much less solid car with a weak
>engine. <snip>

The 170 was as big as they offered in the "Falcoon" in '62. Still, it
was better than the 144 of 1960, especially with the 2 speed FoMo. The
spring tower front ends of Falcons were notoriously weak, a problem
that carried through on the derivative Mustang and even the Maverick.

>Standard shift of course, had to double clutch to shift down to the non
>syncro low gear on the very steep (logging road class) hills when towing. <snip>

Standard transmission was the saving grace on your car. '62 Chevy IIs
with Powerglide were notoriously slow and fuel hungry. I believe you
could also order a Chevy II with overdrive, as you could the Falcon
after '61.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:30:09 GMT, who > wrote:

>Well Daimler will have to get rid of Chrysler, but the lower costs from
>Chrysler's volume will hold them back.<snip>

Sometimes I think Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler Corp. as a German tax
write-off.

>DC seems to think all Chrysler cars should have a truck front grill. <snip>

Well, not really...the "crossed bars" grille is a salute to Chrysler's
glory days with the letter series 300s of the '50s, but only old
timers seem to remember that.

>With the 300 Chrysler did return to the 60s. OK for a few years <snip>

The 300M was just another gussied up LH, wasn't it, a la Iacocca's EEK
cars. The current 300 is a whole different concept and even has some
performance in its hemi form, but as I said, that car has been spoiled
by being a "ghetto ride," which scares off buyers looking for a long
term car investment. Cadillac's now feeling the problems associated
with having that image.

DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:10:48 GMT, who > wrote:
>
> >GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be
> >a creative designer there. <snip>
>
> Back in their heyday, whizbang stylist Harley Earle and wizzard
> engineer "Boss" Kettering could crank out new designs and styles
> whenever they wished. The Corvair "pancake" 6 was a Kettering idea,
> but it only took GM 26 years to get it to market!! It took them from
> 1938 to 1949 to get their first OHV V8s, two separate, competing
> projects to market...one by Bennett at Olds, one by Barr and Cole at
> Cadillac...although WW II can be blamed for about four years of that
> time lag. However, when GM wanted to move fast, they could. "Boss"
> Kettering got his EMD 567-series 2 stroke diesels and his smaller GM
> Diesel Division (later "Detroit Diesel" after the consent decree in
> the '60s) engines to market within 18 months, again with a big push by
> Al Sloan at the corporate offices. Both came to market in 1939.
>
> In their consumer car lines, GM only took two years for them to get
> the original HydraMatic to market in the '38 Olds. Reason: Sloan
> picked the HydraMatic as a pet project to get through the GM central
> committees for his then-favorite division, Oldsmobile. Originally,
> the HydraMatic was going to go to Buick (where Sloan "grew up" in GM
> after being a ball bearing salesman for New Departure), but they
> refused, preferring instead to try to downsize the Allison bus
> transmission into the Dynaflow...which again took 10 years to get to
> market, in 1948! Little did they know that a young John DeLorean was
> doing the same thing over at Packard in only 18 months, which resulted
> in the Ultramatic, which copied the GM bus transmission right down to
> the torque converter clutch (first application of this anywhere, NOT
> the Torqueflite of '78) and the four element converter. DeLorean
> rushed the Ultramatic into production with one fatal design
> flaw...using a bushing with no seal to seal up the torque converter
> output shaft, which made the Ultramatic one of the most unreliable
> automatic transmissions ever sold. While many blame the demise of
> Packard on their continued use of obsolete straight 8 engines while
> Olds, Buick and Cadillac had modern, efficient OHV V8s, the Ultramatic
> was the last nail in the coffin that sealed their fate. By the time
> Packard ponied up their big V8s, it was far too late for them, and
> they were gobbled up by the Studebaker family. Meanwhile, DeLorean
> had abandoned Packard, and became part of the problem at GM.
>
> Chrysler trivia: The original 318 "A" engine uses the exact same
> lifters as the '55-'56 Packard V8s, along with several other piece
> parts. Why? Chrysler bought the brand new Packard engine plant from
> Studebaker in late '56, complete with tooling. Why reinvent the
> wheel? Packard V8 fans routinely rebuild their engines with Chrysler
> lifters, wrist pins, valve guides and several other indentical small
> parts. Had Packard survived '56 and fixed the Ultramatic disaster,
> the Packard V8 would've been a real contender for GM to deal with.


troll ! pretty pathetic one too...

he drives a 1978 Honda- what would he know about an American car ??

he's a RICER

he recently disassembled an entire 318 engine, when all it needed was a
thermostat !

DeserTBoB wrote:

>
> The 300M was just another gussied up LH, wasn't it, a la Iacocca's EEK
> cars. The current 300 is a whole different concept and even has some
> performance in its hemi form, but as I said, that car has been spoiled
> by being a "ghetto ride," which scares off buyers looking for a long
> term car investment. Cadillac's now feeling the problems associated
> with having that image.

Yes, Cadillac has a problem with sales up about 10 % this year I believe. .

> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> >
> > The 300M was just another gussied up LH, wasn't it, a la Iacocca's EEK
> > cars. The current 300 is a whole different concept and even has some
> > performance in its hemi form, but as I said, that car has been spoiled
> > by being a "ghetto ride," which scares off buyers looking for a long
> > term car investment. Cadillac's now feeling the problems associated
> > with having that image.
The very first live 300 I saw was a black one driven by a suspected pimp.

Today I saw an all black Magnum at my Chrysler dealer.
Wow it's a hearse!

A few years ago I would receive regularly the monthly mag of the ADAC,
Germany's largest motoring organization (equivalent to the AAA in US, I
guess).

Annualy they published break-down and repair stats for all cars with more
than 10 000 annual sales. In all classes where the Japanese manufacturers
(Toyota, Mazda and, I think Honda) were represented they clustered at the
top of the reliability tree.

There were anomalies and distortions in the figures. E.g. they were not
normalised for mileage, so that cars like the Merc S Class came out worse
than they should because their average mileage was much higher than those of
other cars, but as a rough-and-ready measure the tables were not bad.

Don't know how it is now. Sadly I don't get the mag anymore.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
>> They're also quite adept at buying off ****ed off buyers
>> whose trucks break in half or engines blow up.
>
> Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but
> over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was
> the start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM
> cars in a row, I went elsewhere.
>