Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:39:36 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> graced this newsgroup with:

>I have been on all sides of the automotive business, designer, retailer and
>fleet maintenance company owner for over a 55 year period. I have never
>owned a domestic, or foreign, car that was ever problematic and I have owned
>several dozens of them. ALL manufactures are building good quality, long
>lasting, dependable vehicle today. One should pick the model
>that best suits their needs and buy the one that best suits ones budget,
>period.
>
>One would expect that a guy with a Ph.D. in anything, let alone his field,
>would be smart enough to use an allies and not post all of his personal
>information in a NG filled with kooks. LOL
>
>mike hunt
>


I respectfully disagree. American automobiles consistently fall
behind foreign (especially Japanese) automakers in reliability
and customer satisfaction.

For example, here's absolutely no way I believe a Chrysler 300M is as
reliable as a Lexus. JD Powers, Consumers Report and Edmunds feel the
same way.

And, having owned my fair share of both foreign and domestic
automobiles myself, I had significantly more problems with American
built cars from the big three than any of my Japanese cars.

It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a
vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental
convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD
Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan
all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and
run like new for that reason.


mike hunt


> wrote in message
...
> On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >
> graced this newsgroup with:
>
writes:
>>>
>>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.
>>
>>My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
>
>
> I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite
> honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the
> ones I've seen are, figuratively speaking, total crap.
>
> They handle like a boat, rattle like dump truck, drink gas like
> flushing a toilet and the fit and finish would make a blind man blush.
>
> And don't even get me started on the paint.
>
> No thanks, older American cars are like older Vettes. Great to look
> at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and
> on the road.
>

The rusting problems of that area where not the cause of the vehicle
manufactures. The rust we IN the 'new;' BOF steels. US steel was the first
American steel company to make steel in Basic Oxygen Furnaces rather than
in decades old open hearth furnaces. Companies that bough from USS, like GM
where the first to rust through no matter what was done to prevent rust by
the vehicle manufacture. Bethlehem Steel converted to BOFs later. Chrysler
and Ford used BSCO steel and the rust showed up in their cars later. It
took a few years for the steel companies to discover the problem an correct
it.. The open heath furnace used fuel oil to melt the iron with the
components to make steel. The BOF did not use any fuel, instead blew oxygen
into a mix of iron and scraps steel, to burn off the impurities as the
'fuel' The fix was to simply blow the O2 a bit longer.


mike hunt


"DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:41:34 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:20:48 GMT, Scott in Florida
> graced this newsgroup with:
>>
>>>On 21 Oct 2006 20:50:35 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >
>>>wrote:
>>>
writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> well..why you would even think of a domestic car if you're looking at
>>>>> something to last 10 years is beyond me.
>>>>
>>>>My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
>>>
>>>Is it as nice as this one?
>>>
>>>http://adcache.collectorcartraderonl...4/49198054.htm
>>
>>
>>yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension. <snip>
>
> Last of the "oversized" Chryslers; the M-bodies would start taking
> over shortly after this.
>
> The one in the ad, being from Pennsylvania, is probably a rust bucket
> made to look nice, unless it's been garageded 99% of the time. Many
> senior Chyslers of that era suffered from the same rust problems that
> the horrible F-bodies did, making good ones quite rare.
>
> Seen yesterday in VG shape: 1978 Aspen 4 door sedan, which has all
> the signs of where the M-body really came from! I took a look at the
> car with the proud owner's permission...not a speck of rust anywhere,
> thanks to use of road salt being illegal out here.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:51:43 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> graced this newsgroup with:

>It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a
>vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental
>convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD
>Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan
>all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and
>run like new for that reason.
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>

I religiously had and have my preventive maintenance done on every
vehicle I've ever owned. All synthetic oil changed every 3k. Rotate
tires every 5k. Tranny, coolant, brake fluids all done on schedule. I
keep records of all my maintenance. I literally wash and
wax my cars at *least* once a month.

The Dodge Durango (99, purchased new), had nothing but problems.
Electrical, a/c, transmission and paint to name just a few. The
Saturns we owned were equally as dismal in quality. The 79 Camaro
I owned (also new), *had parts falling off it as they handed me the
keys*. The paint faded (black) to nearly white in less than a year
and the sunroof leaked like crazy.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:42:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>I have a 1971 Pinto with 300K on the clock, that looks and runs like new.
>Nearly all original, but the exhaust was changed once. LOL <snip>

Despite their bad press over the rear end pumpkin stud/gas tank
fiasco, and Ford's arrogance in taking care of the problem, Pintos
weren't any worse than any other US try at a small car, and were
lightyears better than GM's Vega.

In fact, the head of the NHTSB back in the '70s, during an informal
exchange with then-Ford president Lee Iacocca, told him, "It's really
too bad what happened with the Pinto. It's really not any worse than
any other car." Iacocca had urged King Henry II to recall all Pintos
for the "skid fix," and King Henry, who hated the Pinto anyway,
refused.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:51:43 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a
>vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental
>convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD
>Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan
>all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and
>run like new for that reason. <snip>

Amen! Preventive and routine maintenance is essential. I have an '86
Fifth Avenue that still turns heads and clueless people think it's
from the '90s.

The '41 Lincoln had one, HUGE headache...that awful V12. All the
faults of the flattie V8, plus higher internal friction and lousy
oiling.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:39:36 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>I have been on all sides of the automotive business, designer, retailer and
>fleet maintenance company owner for over a 55 year period. I have never
>owned a domestic, or foreign, car that was ever problematic and I have owned
>several dozens of them. <snip>

Obviously you never owned a Chevy Vega! Even the much-maligned Edsel
was a reliable car...once the sheet metal bugs were worked out, a
problem that also affected the '57 Ford and Merc models. One thing
the Edsel gave the Ford world that was a huge plus...the FE engine,
probably once of the most durable and versatile V8s Ford ever made.
Not a huge champ in efficiency like the '49-'62 Barr-Cole engine for
Cadillac, and not at all light, like the cheaply designed Ed Cole
engine for Chevrolet Division, it would run for 300K miles with normal
maintenance before having its heads off for any reason.

The only engines I can compare this one to in terms of ruggedness were
the A and LA, as well as the slant 6 engines from Chrysler, which I'm
convinced will run forever with good maintenance. B and RB
engines....eh.

writes:
>
> yeesh..that takes "butt ugly" to a whole new dimension.
>
> IMHO of course. :-)

So far, your opinions seem to be about as humble as they are
well-informed.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

"Mike Hunter" > writes:
>
> One would expect that a guy with a Ph.D. in anything, let alone his field,
> would be smart enough to use an allies and not post all of his personal
> information in a NG filled with kooks. LOL

My information has been available in too many places on the net for
far, far too long for me to start worrying about it now.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Some O > graced this
> newsgroup with:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> and this has to do with Nissans because.....?

Friends don't let friends drive Asian cars.

;-)