American Car Makes

American auto makers can take apart and study in detail the
competitions' cars. They know exactly how the top sellers and reliable
cars are built, right down to the screws. They know how they perform on
their test tracks. They know what look is selling.

So why do they keep screwing up?

GM makes nice trucks but except for Cadillac and the Corvette, piece of
**** cars. The Cadillacs are in may ways better than their Japanese
competitors. I know my STS is a far better car than a pal's top end
Infiniti.

American auto makers are notorious in my opinion for substituting
plastic exteriors to make the cars look "cool" for a decent powerplant,
witness Pontiac. Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
but never consistently put a good engine in.

Even when they get the engine and look right, they will throw in a
crappy interior. The Corvette falls into this category.

Chevy makes all these cheap **** sedans that nobody in their right mind
would ever buy.

Ford is in my opinion mostly a lost cause. When I am car shopping I
hardly ever go to a Ford dealer. The last Ford I owned leaked oil all
the time no matter what I had done to it.

Did the American car makers really think people would be buying assault
vehicles to drive around forever?

I just don't get what they think they have been doing.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:

> American auto makers can take apart and study in detail the
> competitions' cars. They know exactly how the top sellers and reliable
> cars are built, right down to the screws. They know how they perform on
> their test tracks. They know what look is selling.

That is what you get when you buy a foriegn car. The American
auto makes are names like Subaru, Hyundi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda,
etc. The cars that are associated with the Detroit names are
largely foreign made or of mostly foreign content. Buy American
by skipping Detroit.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Dave Lister wrote:
Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
> but never consistently put a good engine in.

HUH?

Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
slant six was even more reliable.

nate


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

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1118613850.20d62b3932c1985fb12d10cda8db708c@t eranews...
> Dave Lister wrote:
> Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>> but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
> HUH?
>
> Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
> offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
> motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
> issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the slant
> six was even more reliable.
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

I've seen a few slant six engines last 300,000-400,000 miles with few
problems in a 1970's fleet of Dusters. And fleet vehicles aren't exactly
the best treated.

Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> Dave Lister wrote:
> Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
> > but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
> HUH?
>
> Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
> offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
> motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
> issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
> slant six was even more reliable.

We've got two Dodge 318s from 1968 and 1970, both running strong. A friend
however, had a 198x LeBaron that was constantly blowing head gaskets and
ultimately I think it cracked its block.

--
Cheers,Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government."
-- letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baron vonHumboldt, 1813

The Real Bev wrote:

> however, had a 198x LeBaron that was constantly blowing head gaskets and
> ultimately I think it cracked its block.

Don't know if it's with all LeBarons, but I had a LeBaron from that era,
and it had a Mitsubishi engine.

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://www.discountcadavers.com

>> however, had a 198x LeBaron that was constantly blowing head gaskets and
>> ultimately I think it cracked its block.

>Don't know if it's with all LeBarons, but I had a LeBaron from that era,
> and it had a Mitsubishi engine.

For very low values of "8x" or high values of "7x" a LeBaron would have
been an M-body RWD sedan powered by an LA-block 318 or in some years
an optional 360.

"LeBaron," which has a long history at Chrysler as a nameplate in its
own right or a variant on the Imperial, was applied to a K-car
derivative in 1983. These and the next generation were smaller
front-wheel-drive cars powered by various I4's (some turbocharged, if
memory serves) and V6's. I'd have to do some digging around to see
where the engines came from, but for sure Chrysler and Mitsubishi were
in a web of technical contributions, badge-engineering of entire cars,
joint ventures, and intertwined ownership during those years. The
model stayed around until replaced by the cab-forward generation in
the mid-90s.

When the little front-wheel-drive jobbies got the LeBaron name, the RWD
V8 "M" body was dubbed the 5th Avenue (which had previously
designated an option package on the New Yorker) and, less gussied up,
the Plymouth St. Regis and Dodge Diplomat. The latter two were much
loved by operators of police and taxicab fleets in their day.

The M-body soldiered on through the rest of the 80s, but never regained
the LeBaron name. Both are history now.

Cheers,
--Joe

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Dave Lister wrote:
>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>> but never consistently put a good engine in.
>
>HUH?
>
>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
>offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
>motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
>issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
>slant six was even more reliable.
>
>nate

Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
to what you can get elsewhere.

DTJ wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>>
>>>but never consistently put a good engine in.
>>
>>HUH?
>>
>>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and GM's
>>offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy and Olds
>>motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that they've had
>>issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick ****house and the
>>slant six was even more reliable.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
> than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
> to what you can get elsewhere.

IMHO since the early 70s, ALL American cars have sucked to some extent.
Chrysler actually postponed the suckage longer and more effectively
than Ford or GM. I still don't understand the comment about Chrysler
consistently not putting in good engines; up until very recently they
were still the best American engines out there and some were really
world class... the LA, B/RB, slant six, 2.2/2.5, all very decent
engines. What have the other guys been putting out? the 3800 is pretty
good, like I said the older non-Chevy GM engines were good, but other
than that...

nate

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

Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1118629849.0557f4ff163c52732e3ebfaa82fa1cb8@t eranews:

> DTJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>>>
>>>>but never consistently put a good engine in.
>>>
>>>HUH?
>>>
>>>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and
>>>GM's offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy
>>>and Olds motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that
>>>they've had issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick
>>>****house and the slant six was even more reliable.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
>> than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
>> to what you can get elsewhere.
>
> IMHO since the early 70s, ALL American cars have sucked to some
> extent.
> Chrysler actually postponed the suckage longer and more effectively
> than Ford or GM. I still don't understand the comment about Chrysler
> consistently not putting in good engines; up until very recently they
> were still the best American engines out there and some were really
> world class... the LA, B/RB, slant six, 2.2/2.5, all very decent
> engines. What have the other guys been putting out? the 3800 is
> pretty good, like I said the older non-Chevy GM engines were good, but
> other than that...

Every Chrysler I have ever driven has been a noisy gutless pig. Of
course it's been a couple of years since I test drove a Concorde.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time