Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:45:18 -0600, Steve > graced this
> newsgroup with:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had
>>>with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim
>>>of their longevity and looks.
>>
>>Why? What makes your claims "plausible," other than the fact that you
>>said them? Nothing.
>>
>
>
> ..the fact that you claim to have American cars that have hundreds of
> thousands of miles on them and look and run like new. THAT isn't
> plausible.

Sorry to disappoint you, but everything I said is a fact.

> Can happen? Sure, but don't come off trying to make the
> claim that ALL American cars do this. Because they don't.

I think we can all agree on that.

So just don't YOU come off trying to make it sound like all Japanese
cars are better than American cars, because we all know THAT isn't true
either. The fact of the matter is that today, there's virtually no
difference in reliability or longevity between ANY car brands. Any
broad-based quality advantage that the Japanese had only existed between
maybe 1978 and 1990. Some brands and models are more amenable to long
life because they're easier to service (German cars, non-GM American
cars). Some have a bit fewer "nuiscance" failures with non-drivetrain
components (Toyota). Some have high rates of very specific failures
(early 2000s Chevrolet V6 intake manifolds, a couple of sludge-prone
Toyota oiling systems, the early Chrysler 2.7L v6 oiling system). But
major differences? Forget it. Cars have evolved to be mostly
transportation appliances. And that is my beef with most of the Japanese
brands. I'd rather have chronic diahrrhea than be subjected to the
boredom of driving a Camry or Altima every day. Yes, the same can be
said of a Taurus, but at least SOME American and German cars are
interesting. About the only Japanese car that I'd give a second look
right now is the RX-8. In contrast, there are more American and German
models that I find interesting every day. The new Mustang, the Charger,
the Magnum, the forthcoming Challenger and next generation Camaro,
Viper, Corvette C6, the BMW 5-series, etc. etc. etc.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:50:49 -0600, Steve > graced this
newsgroup with:


>So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah>


Actually there *is* a difference in American and Japanese cars when it
comes to reliability and since you don't have a CLUE to what the hell
you're talking about since YOUR knowledge is nearly 30 years old, I
doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about.

Here's a (free) clue for you junior, go and read the reviews about
American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise!
They suck. The ONLY place they *don't* suck is resale value if you're
a buyer. Want to know why? Because used American cars *suck* worse
than *new* American cars.

And if you're dumb enough to try and compare a Camry's driving
characteristics to that of a Viper, your dumber than even your posts
belie.

wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:50:49 -0600, Steve > graced this
> newsgroup with:
>
>
>
>>So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah>
>
>
>
> Actually there *is* a difference in American and Japanese cars when it
> comes to reliability and since you don't have a CLUE to what the hell
> you're talking about since YOUR knowledge is nearly 30 years old,

Interesting math that says 2006-1993=30. But then its no less than I'd
expect.

You're clearly a True Believer. Have a good fantasy. I'll keep enjoying
good CARS.



I
> doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about.
>
> Here's a (free) clue for you junior,

I suspect I'm about 20 years older than you, but it if makes you feel
big to call me "junior," then please do.

> go and read the reviews about
> American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise!
> They suck.

The only thing that sucks is the vacuum between your ears. I'd be
perfectly willing to have a civilized discussion, but when you wade into
a Chrysler enthusiast (Chrysler has those you know, not just mindless
drones like the ones who drive Camrys) group slinging this garbage, you
get what you deserve.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:21:51 -0600, Steve > graced this
newsgroup with:

wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:50:49 -0600, Steve > graced this
>> newsgroup with:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So just don't YOU come off trying <snip blah blah blah blah blah>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually there *is* a difference in American and Japanese cars when it
>> comes to reliability and since you don't have a CLUE to what the hell
>> you're talking about since YOUR knowledge is nearly 30 years old,
>
>Interesting math that says 2006-1993=30. But then its no less than I'd
>expect.


...I see your reading comprehension skills are about as good as the
rest of garbage you spew "junior". Re-read. I'm typing this real
slow since it's obvious you can't read too fast.




>
>You're clearly a True Believer. Have a good fantasy. I'll keep enjoying
>good CARS.

....uh..you misspelled "crack".


>
>
>
> I
>> doubt anything you say is worth the bandwidth to argue about.
>>
>> Here's a (free) clue for you junior,
>
>I suspect I'm about 20 years older than you, but it if makes you feel
>big to call me "junior," then please do.


...I doubt that. But then again, you haven't said anything of any
value so far...

>
>> go and read the reviews about
>> American cars. *Especially * the Chrysler made products. Surprise!
>> They suck.
>
>The only thing that sucks is the vacuum between your ears. I'd be
>perfectly willing to have a civilized discussion, but when you wade into
>a Chrysler enthusiast (Chrysler has those you know, not just mindless
>drones like the ones who drive Camrys) group slinging this garbage, you
>get what you deserve.

...OOoooOOOO...snappy comeback. Did you get your keyboard all wet and
sticky when you typed that? Junior? Did ya? Come on..you can tell
us. I could care less about Chrysler "enthusiasts" or what they have
to say and if you have hide behind them to shore you up, knock
yourself out...really...

In article >,
SoCalMike > wrote:

> heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed...
>
> new gas tank
> new exhaust system
> new brake system
> new steering gearbox
> new tranny
Big 3 cars in the 70s were a piece of SH--!
That decade was known as the crap period of NA cars.
I avoided them. The rentals I had were more than enough.
>
> the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6.
Right on. That great engine, from the 60s just went on and on.
Currently Chryslers 3.3L V6 is in the same high reliability category.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> Some brands and models are more amenable to long
> life because they're easier to service (German cars,
Hopefully the VW is easy to service because it's well known they've
needed lots of it in the last several years.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:43:31 GMT, who > graced this
newsgroup with:

>In article >,
> SoCalMike > wrote:
>
>> heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed...
>>
>> new gas tank
>> new exhaust system
>> new brake system
>> new steering gearbox
>> new tranny
>Big 3 cars in the 70s were a piece of SH--!
>That decade was known as the crap period of NA cars.
>I avoided them. The rentals I had were more than enough.

....80's era wasn't any better.

>>
>> the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6.
>Right on. That great engine, from the 60s just went on and on.
>Currently Chryslers 3.3L V6 is in the same high reliability category.


I think the slant 6 engine was one of the best engines Detroit ever
put out. I had an old Dodge Dart with that engine. Everything else
around it was falling a part but you couldn't kill that engine with
C4.

> I think the slant 6 engine was one of the best engines Detroit ever
> put out. I had an old Dodge Dart with that engine. Everything else
> around it was falling a part but you couldn't kill that engine with
> C4.

Great engines I have had. In all cases the cars fell apart with the engines
still like new

Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963
Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945
Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang

Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any
high tech dependable engines out there?

Howard

Howard Nelson wrote:

>
> Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963
> Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945
> Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang
>
> Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any
> high tech dependable engines out there?

Lots, but I guess that depends a little on what you mean by "high tech."

The Chrysler 3.5 has proven a worthy succesor to the old Slant, both in
its original iron-block form and in its 2nd generation aluminum form.
I'd call it "mid tech." Its fully computerized EFI, crank-driven oil
pump, cross-bolted main bearings, forged crank, shot-peened rods, etc.
But its belt-timed, and thats pretty stone-age.

The Chrysler 4.7L v8, by all accounts, is following in the
slant-6/318/383 tradition too, and it is chain timed. But for whatever
reason, its not being used in cars, just trucks and SUVs. I don't really
get that, and never have. It would be the ideal mid-range engine in the
LX cars instead of over-working the 3.5. The real high-tech one in the
Daimler-Chrysler stable is the 5.7L Hemi v8 with MDS (cylinder
deactivation), anti-scuff coated short-skirt eutectic pistons,
powdered-metal cracked-cap rods, forged crank, cross-bolted mains, dual
spark plugs, precision-cast lightweight iron block, great breathing
(quasi) Hemi heads, etc. (the list goes on for pages). So far so good,
but 2 years does not a reputation make.

The Cadillac Northstar v8 (and "shortstar" v6 too) is a truly superb
piece of engineering and most of them hold up really well, even if the
cars wrapped around it tend to look like angry window air-conditioning
units. The Nissan/Infiniti v6 always draws high praise, as it should-
its an excellent engine (but comparing it to the noisy, growly,
manifold-gasket blowing then camshaft breaking Chevrolet-derived GM v6
family is no comparison). The GM "Gen-III" smallblock v8s are performing
well, and the old Buick 3800 still goes on forever, but while the engine
management systems are very high-tech those engines themselves are
pretty basic. The larger Gen-IIIs, for example, still have the too-short
connecting rods of the traditional smallblock Chevy which they evolved
from. IMO, the little GM "Ecotec" 4 is very overlooked and underrated-
its a nice little tech-loaded engine for generic people-movers and
should have a long life. BMW makes a lot of excellent performing
high-tech engines, but "reliability" really isn't in their dictionary,
unfortunately. Same can be said for the offerings from the Benz side of
the DaimlerChrysler house.

No one's really mentioned the current crop of Common-Rail diesels, and
I'm not overly familiar with the smaller ones. I gather that the VW TDI
is an excellent design, but I don't know if its really "bulletproof" or
not. Of course the 24-valve Cummins ISB used in the Ram is an
engineering tour-de-force (the darn thing is so quiet it doesn't even
SOUND like a diesel) but its a bit out of scope since its really a
medium truck diesel.

It would probably be easier overall to put together a list of "clunker"
engines of today, because MOST of them out there are quite good. I'll
gladly point out my own manufacturer-of-choice's faults first: the
Chrysler 2.7 v6 is questionable, since the early ones were prone to
coking their oil and winding up steaming piles(*). So is the (gone and
not missed) 2.0/2.4 inline 4 family (headgasket blowers). Throw on the
GM Chevy-based v6s (2.8/3.1/3.4/3.5), the two repeat-offender Toyota oil
cokers(*), and just a few others.

(*) For the record- plenty of Chrysler and Toyota apologists will claim
that you can make all 3 of those engines last just fine if you use
synthetic oil and change it according to the severe-use schedules. But I
think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all from a list
of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of neglect.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:24:33 -0600, Steve > graced this
newsgroup with:

>Howard Nelson wrote:
>
>>
>> Chrysler Slant 6 - Dodge Dart 1963
>> Volvo I4 (red block) BF230 - 1985 245 and 1993 945
>> Ford V8 302 H.O. (5.0L) 1989 Mustang
>>
>> Can't say they were very efficient engines but they got the job done. Any
>> high tech dependable engines out there?
>

.....

>Lots, but I guess that depends a little on what you mean by "high tech."
>(*) For the record- plenty of Chrysler and Toyota apologists will claim
>that you can make all 3 of those engines last just fine if you use
>synthetic oil and change it according to the severe-use schedules. But I
>think that kind of kid-glove treatment disqualifies them all from a list
>of "reliable" designs. A good design can tolerate a bit of neglect.

Unfortunately, I think there isn't a *perfect* engine that's ever been
made. Some have come close but for the life of me I can't figure out
why any manufacturer would go to all the trouble of making a halfway
decent engine then wrapping it around a car that falls apart long
before the engine does.

You'd think by now that ANY manufacturer, either foreign or domestic
(as if there's really any distinction anymore), could just take all
the "good" bits from various cars and put them all in one package.

Hell, I'd even pay more for it if they'd do that.