Lee Ayrton

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Both Japan and Detroit can make a good car if they really want to. I
> personally would rather buy American if the quality and price are
> comparable for the most part but it is not the first thing I look for.
> Buying a domestic product that is inferior just makes you a large
> banana republic.

Rightly or wrongly, Detroit has never really gotten past the damage that
they did in the 1980s by cranking out what were seen as over-priced,
badly engineered, shoddy cars that wouldn't run right and fell apart the
day after the warantee ran out.

For examples of how they perpetuate that idea, keyword search this group
for "secret warantee" or "peeling paint" or "cracked exhaust".



> As I said elsewhere, Toyota in my opinion makes the best fork lift in
> the world. I personally don't buy fork lifts, few individuals do, but
> the North American competition is not as good at least in the size
> class of lift truck I have experience with. US lift trucks have US
> industrial engines made from patterns and core boxes made in the '50s
> and they no longer cut the muster.

While looking up info on Jeep FCs I found a link to a supplier for parts
for the 1960-ish FC's Continental engine. The supplier deals in fork
lift engine supplies.


> I don't feel Japanese cars are necessarily better any more. But GM
> can't blame its problems on anyone else, it has failed to produce a
> first rate product on a cost effective basis for a long time. Yes, the
> Corvette is a great value for a car in its class-in fact probably too
> good, you don't buy an expensive sports car for cost-effectiveness!
> Yes, the Duramax is great. Yes, the Northstar is first class tech. But
> overall their lines are stodgy, middle-of-the-road, and have no
> compelling reason to buy.

That's pretty much what Brock Yates was saying in 1983 in _The Decline
And Fall Of The American Automobile Industry_. Note that Detroit is
whining that they can't sell as many SUVs -- now that gas prices are
(perceived to be) high -- as they did a couple years ago. SUV sales is
where they put all their profit eggs and made the most money. It isn't
much different from 1980, whining that they can't sell as many bloated
Buicks and Pontiacs with expensive "option packages" as they used to.

Yates was of the opinion that Detroit was an closed society, cut off
from the market that fed them. Then, their idea of going out to the
countryside and listing to what the common folk thought about their cars
was to fly to LA and be driven to a trade show. That they today were
unprepared for the side effects of oil going to $55/bbl suggests that
the sons of the men who were blind 25 years ago are in charge.

How is GM fixing the situation now? Their Grand Plan consists of
slapping a GM label on everything that they make. I predict that Saturn
sales are going to start dropping faster the day after GM badges appear
on those cars.


> DCX has done good things with Jeep and will probably do more, but I
> don't think they really have a strong idea where they want to go in a
> way the American Jeep buyer will really go for.

I haven't really been paying attention to current Jeepoid products but I
do know that there was a corporate decision about a decade back to go
after upper middle class buyers. It had something to do with a study
that found that if there was a Cherokee in a two car garage, the other
car was a luxury car. Ah! thought the hivemind, we should be building
/luxury/ Cherokees -- completely missing the reason that the Cherokee
was the _other_ car in the garage.

Current jeeps, on the same hand, just look like very tall boxy cars to
me, but I'm not part of the herd that buys. Power windows, plush
interiors, bah! I say. Its just a matter of time before they come out
with a front-wheel drive "Wrangler" with a nice pillow-soft ride.

Ruel Smith

Lee Ayrton wrote:

> Then, their idea of going out to the
> countryside and listing to what the common folk thought about their cars
> was to fly to LA and be driven to a trade show.

I'm really worried about what is going to happen to Jeep now that the shots
are being called by Daimler. I just feel this has a negative impact on what
I and many other Wrangler owners, in particular, want in a Jeep.

I say this because my Wrangler is now getting old. I wish I had the setup
and skills to completely overhaul it, but I don't. Instead, I may have to
get a new Wrangler. I don't want it to be some IFS, 3.7 V6 powered Liberty
look-alike that I've seen in the rumours and the show cars Jeep has given
us like the Hurricane. I want a Wrangler, in the traditional sense: Live
axles front and back, 424/458 inline pushrod 6, removable doors, and
everything you associate with a CJ/Wrangler.

BTW, gas would have to get a lot more expensive to steer me away from
wanting to drive a Wrangler.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Ruel Smith

Lee Ayrton wrote:

> Then, their idea of going out to the
> countryside and listing to what the common folk thought about their cars
> was to fly to LA and be driven to a trade show.

I'm really worried about what is going to happen to Jeep now that the shots
are being called by Daimler. I just feel this has a negative impact on what
I and many other Wrangler owners, in particular, want in a Jeep.

I say this because my Wrangler is now getting old. I wish I had the setup
and skills to completely overhaul it, but I don't. Instead, I may have to
get a new Wrangler. I don't want it to be some IFS, 3.7 V6 powered Liberty
look-alike that I've seen in the rumours and the show cars Jeep has given
us like the Hurricane. I want a Wrangler, in the traditional sense: Live
axles front and back, 424/458 inline pushrod 6, removable doors, and
everything you associate with a CJ/Wrangler.

BTW, gas would have to get a lot more expensive to steer me away from
wanting to drive a Wrangler.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Ruel Smith

Lee Ayrton wrote:

> Then, their idea of going out to the
> countryside and listing to what the common folk thought about their cars
> was to fly to LA and be driven to a trade show.

I'm really worried about what is going to happen to Jeep now that the shots
are being called by Daimler. I just feel this has a negative impact on what
I and many other Wrangler owners, in particular, want in a Jeep.

I say this because my Wrangler is now getting old. I wish I had the setup
and skills to completely overhaul it, but I don't. Instead, I may have to
get a new Wrangler. I don't want it to be some IFS, 3.7 V6 powered Liberty
look-alike that I've seen in the rumours and the show cars Jeep has given
us like the Hurricane. I want a Wrangler, in the traditional sense: Live
axles front and back, 424/458 inline pushrod 6, removable doors, and
everything you associate with a CJ/Wrangler.

BTW, gas would have to get a lot more expensive to steer me away from
wanting to drive a Wrangler.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Ruel Smith

Lee Ayrton wrote:

> Then, their idea of going out to the
> countryside and listing to what the common folk thought about their cars
> was to fly to LA and be driven to a trade show.

I'm really worried about what is going to happen to Jeep now that the shots
are being called by Daimler. I just feel this has a negative impact on what
I and many other Wrangler owners, in particular, want in a Jeep.

I say this because my Wrangler is now getting old. I wish I had the setup
and skills to completely overhaul it, but I don't. Instead, I may have to
get a new Wrangler. I don't want it to be some IFS, 3.7 V6 powered Liberty
look-alike that I've seen in the rumours and the show cars Jeep has given
us like the Hurricane. I want a Wrangler, in the traditional sense: Live
axles front and back, 424/458 inline pushrod 6, removable doors, and
everything you associate with a CJ/Wrangler.

BTW, gas would have to get a lot more expensive to steer me away from
wanting to drive a Wrangler.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Lon

Too bad Daimler-Chrysler doesn't let their suspension engineers
compete with the VW and Rover folks. They got rid of the G-Wagen
and replaced it with a Walmart runner. There were rumors that they
might create a ML and Grand Cherokee set of vehicles with the ride
height control of a Rover or VW, but all they did was lower the
GC and give it an IRS... it handles OK but not really that much
better than the older solid axle and will get its rear end kicked
on by the new Rovers on poor paved surfaces.


calcerise@hotmail.com proclaimed:

> No, I think they understand the off road crowd wants a straight axle,
> right or wrong. And I think they're wrong to get rid of the inline
> 6-but MBZ does have some first rate engines to pick from, gas and
> diesel.
>
> As far as the Liberty-it's a girlie-car and it does that well. Females
> love it. For men, there are Wranglers.
>
> MBZ has had some QC problems-but they have acknowledged them and they
> are making progress. And they are the leaders in CAN electronics, which
> is as close as we are going to get in cars to ARINC 429, and it's the
> right way to go-the price will get right when the rest of the industry
> follows suit. Since it haas heavy use in capital manufacturing and
> materials handling equipment, real test tools, supplied by real vendors
> like Agilent, are available-far better than Mickey Mouse Snap-on
> automotive stuff.
>

Lon

Too bad Daimler-Chrysler doesn't let their suspension engineers
compete with the VW and Rover folks. They got rid of the G-Wagen
and replaced it with a Walmart runner. There were rumors that they
might create a ML and Grand Cherokee set of vehicles with the ride
height control of a Rover or VW, but all they did was lower the
GC and give it an IRS... it handles OK but not really that much
better than the older solid axle and will get its rear end kicked
on by the new Rovers on poor paved surfaces.


calcerise@hotmail.com proclaimed:

> No, I think they understand the off road crowd wants a straight axle,
> right or wrong. And I think they're wrong to get rid of the inline
> 6-but MBZ does have some first rate engines to pick from, gas and
> diesel.
>
> As far as the Liberty-it's a girlie-car and it does that well. Females
> love it. For men, there are Wranglers.
>
> MBZ has had some QC problems-but they have acknowledged them and they
> are making progress. And they are the leaders in CAN electronics, which
> is as close as we are going to get in cars to ARINC 429, and it's the
> right way to go-the price will get right when the rest of the industry
> follows suit. Since it haas heavy use in capital manufacturing and
> materials handling equipment, real test tools, supplied by real vendors
> like Agilent, are available-far better than Mickey Mouse Snap-on
> automotive stuff.
>

Lon

Too bad Daimler-Chrysler doesn't let their suspension engineers
compete with the VW and Rover folks. They got rid of the G-Wagen
and replaced it with a Walmart runner. There were rumors that they
might create a ML and Grand Cherokee set of vehicles with the ride
height control of a Rover or VW, but all they did was lower the
GC and give it an IRS... it handles OK but not really that much
better than the older solid axle and will get its rear end kicked
on by the new Rovers on poor paved surfaces.


calcerise@hotmail.com proclaimed:

> No, I think they understand the off road crowd wants a straight axle,
> right or wrong. And I think they're wrong to get rid of the inline
> 6-but MBZ does have some first rate engines to pick from, gas and
> diesel.
>
> As far as the Liberty-it's a girlie-car and it does that well. Females
> love it. For men, there are Wranglers.
>
> MBZ has had some QC problems-but they have acknowledged them and they
> are making progress. And they are the leaders in CAN electronics, which
> is as close as we are going to get in cars to ARINC 429, and it's the
> right way to go-the price will get right when the rest of the industry
> follows suit. Since it haas heavy use in capital manufacturing and
> materials handling equipment, real test tools, supplied by real vendors
> like Agilent, are available-far better than Mickey Mouse Snap-on
> automotive stuff.
>

Lon

Too bad Daimler-Chrysler doesn't let their suspension engineers
compete with the VW and Rover folks. They got rid of the G-Wagen
and replaced it with a Walmart runner. There were rumors that they
might create a ML and Grand Cherokee set of vehicles with the ride
height control of a Rover or VW, but all they did was lower the
GC and give it an IRS... it handles OK but not really that much
better than the older solid axle and will get its rear end kicked
on by the new Rovers on poor paved surfaces.


calcerise@hotmail.com proclaimed:

> No, I think they understand the off road crowd wants a straight axle,
> right or wrong. And I think they're wrong to get rid of the inline
> 6-but MBZ does have some first rate engines to pick from, gas and
> diesel.
>
> As far as the Liberty-it's a girlie-car and it does that well. Females
> love it. For men, there are Wranglers.
>
> MBZ has had some QC problems-but they have acknowledged them and they
> are making progress. And they are the leaders in CAN electronics, which
> is as close as we are going to get in cars to ARINC 429, and it's the
> right way to go-the price will get right when the rest of the industry
> follows suit. Since it haas heavy use in capital manufacturing and
> materials handling equipment, real test tools, supplied by real vendors
> like Agilent, are available-far better than Mickey Mouse Snap-on
> automotive stuff.
>

Dave Milne

A 458 I6 Wrangler, now that would be something. Each piston would be 1.2
litres !

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:e021a$429b53b8$422aaa7c$895@FUSE.NET...
> I want a Wrangler, in the traditional sense: Live
> axles front and back, 424/458 inline pushrod 6, removable doors, and
> everything you associate with a CJ/Wrangler.