Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:20:14 GMT, " krp" > wrote:

>> He can't seem to do anything more than flail at the wind while telling
>> people how stupid they are,
>
>Tell me when your mother discovered your brain damage?

Thank you for making my point.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:48e24330@kcnews01...
>
>>>>>>>>> Better than an IDIOT who failed to read that it was a FLEET
>>>>>>>>> of cars owned by the COMPANY I was working for at the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not what you said. You said - "Granted my experience
>>>>>>>> was at the end of the 60's and early 70's. On my Galaxie 500,
>>>>>>>> the doors fell off twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the
>>>>>>>> car started on fire on the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of
>>>>>>>> the BETTER ones."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said "MY Galaxie 500" and "MINE was one of the BETTER
>>>>>>>> ones. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look TWERP - I DID say from the start no less than 5 different
>>>>>>> times it was a FLEET CAR! And yes it was "MY CAR" because it
>>>>>>> was assigned to me. Since my job was extremely secure it was
>>>>>>> MY CAR!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what are you are now trying to claim now? That you
>>>>>> personally had many different Galaxies and each had a hood fly
>>>>>> off or a door fall off, or that it caught on fire?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you RETARDED? Seriously, were you brain damaged at
>>>>> birth????
>>>>>
>>>>> The company I worked for had ABOUT 3500 Ford Galaxies.GOT IT?
>>>>> Must I explain it further? Too complicated for you? I suggest
>>>>> that if you need a brain transfusion that you set one up with
>>>>> the "Fleet" company the OTHER Fleet that does enemas! What part
>>>>> of "FLEET" keeps sailing right over that point on top of your
>>>>> head?
>>>>
>>>> The part where you said "On my Galaxie 500, the doors fell off
>>>> twice. The hood flew off 6 times, and the car started on fire on
>>>> the freeway 6 times. Mine was one of the BETTER ones."
>>>
>>> MY GOD - - - you are fukkkking DENSE!
>>>
>>> It was the car assigned to me for the term of the lease. 2 YEARS,
>>> it was MY CAR! Do you have EVEN A REMOTE idea what a FLEET IS?
>>> Even an infantile understanding? Should I call the car assigned to
>>> me FRED'S CAR? It was MY CAR. The one *I* drive you blithering
>>> JACKASS
>>
>> Calling me names is not helping your case. So the one *you* drove
>> had the hood fly off six times, the door fall off twice, etc. or
>> did this supposedly happen to different cars in the fleet of 3500?
>> I assume you mean the later, but you keep implying it happened to
>> the one you drove. Now if you said something like "the hoods flew
>> off of six different cars in the companies fleet that were like the
>> car I drove" then maybe I could understand your claim. However you
>> keep making statements that imply that six times the hood flew off
>> the car you drove. I still believe you are just making things up,
>> or exaggerating actual events in an attempt to justify your bashing
>> of domestic cars.
>
> Seriously. Are you retarded? I gave a list of the problems with
> MY CAR, and said that almost all of the rest of the fleet had
> serious recurring problems, and among them were water pump failures,
> power steering failures, brake failures, transmissioin failures and
> most commonly electrical fires and air conditioning failures.
> AT any given time ABOUT 30% of the fleet was in for repairs.
>
>> Here are a few simple question that maybe you can answer without
>> calling me something:
>
>> - Did the hood ever fly off a car you were personally driving?
>
> Yes.
>
>> - Did the door ever fall off a car you were personally driving?
>
> Yes, the driver's side rear and the passenger side front.
>
>> - Did a car you were personally driving ever catch on fire?
>
> Yes several times. Under the hood.
>
>> I am not asking if another car in the fleet ever had the hood fly
>> off, or the door fall off, or catch on fire. I am asking if it ever
>> happed to your one special car. The car assigned to you. Not a car
>> assigned to someone else. Not a report of a rumor. Not an urban
>> legend. Not some made up crap. But something you personally
>> witnessed happening to the car you were assigned.
>
> But other cars had similar problems. One of our district managers
> in New York had to make a "panic stop" and both front fenders and
> the hood slid off. Seems somebody neglected to put in a few bolts.

This is X-files level stuff now. This could not have happned as
claimed without deliberate, very clever, major revisions to the front
end of the car.

It is very common for people to "enhance" stories in an effort to make
a point. You've gone way past that. Your claims wouldn't even qualify
as good science fiction.

Ed


> At the end of the lease period it was not renewed and the fleet
> manager was terminated. The company went back to compensating
> employees for using their own cars and were millions ahead.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:26:02 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>This is X-files level stuff now. This could not have happned as
>claimed without deliberate, very clever, major revisions to the front
>end of the car.
>
>It is very common for people to "enhance" stories in an effort to make
>a point. You've gone way past that. Your claims wouldn't even qualify
>as good science fiction.

Okay, let us give him the benefit of the doubt... What kind of
explosives truck did the man rear-end to cause the front end to fall
off or did he hit a 70's Pinto hatchback?

<adventuremyk> wrote in message
...
> There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford
> are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured
> I
> wuold take a few minutes to look at a reason or two.
>
> The biggest reason is going to be customer perception. After all,
> perception is reality to the person who is looking.
>
> Taking this into account I went to Edmunds.com and put in the same
> info for 4 each of a lines entry cars and midsize sedans. All info
> is
> left basic with the following attributes.
>
> All are 2003 models
> All are listed as silver (base paint)
> All are automatics
> I used 50,000 miles (10k a year)
> I used Average as a modifier though I could have used clean. I
> figure
> most cars will be average after 5 years of normal use/wear &
> tear/cleaning. Keep in mind, average does not reflect the car
> enthusiast likely to be in here.
>
> All prices are Average Dealer Retail.
>
> The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close
> among
> the brands. IE: the upper level Civic EX (not high performance Si
> but
> the more common EX) had an MSRP of about $16k which was similar for
> the Focus, Corolla SE, and Cavalier when each had similar equipment
> on
> it. This was just a rough compilation and it should only be taken as
> such. I did not add any options save for an automatic transmission.
> For the sedans I chose the V6 model of each as a representative
> group.
> I couldnt' care less about rebates and incentives, only MSRP. If
> they
> have to use the rebates and incentives it simply says they are not
> competitive on the price point they want to play at.
>
> ***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test and no,
> I
> didn't take the time to dial in every single little option or detail
> to make it perfect. This is a broad group that is representative of
> the average for-sale car.
>
> Here are the results:
>
> Entry level sedan/4-door:
> Honda Civic EX $9,650
> Toyota Corolla SE $8,372
> Chevy Cavalier LS $5,510
> Ford Focus SE $5,736
>
> Midsize Standard sedans/4door:
> Honda Accord EX V6 $12,766
> Toyota Camry SE V6 $11,046
> Chevy Malibu $5,964
> Ford Taurus SES $5,964
>
> Odd that the Taurus SES and Malibu were both listed as the same
> price.
> In all cases the 'domestics' are roughly half (50-65%) the value of
> the imports over a given period of 5 years. That would be one of
> the
> resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be
> competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and
> rebates simply to unbury their previous customers. To make matters
> worse, they destroyed anyone who recently bought a car when they
> started doing the Employee Pricing gimmick. What that means is that
> anyone who bought a car for anything near a normal price is now
> HAMMERED in the cars they bought and, without a significant amount
> of
> cash to bail themselves out, are now stuck with them.
>
> Yes, when you kill your own customers it's hard to get repeat
> business. It's harder, still, to attract new business.

I have a few problems with your methodology. 1) You are basing the
initial costs on MSRP. It has been my experience that I can usually
buy domestic for thousands under MSRP, while Toyotas and Honda often
actually sell for more than MSRP when you throw in the BS that the
dealers add (high doc fees, protectant packages, etc). I'd think this
means your estimates for the original cost are off by at least a
couple of thousand. 2) I don't get your point about not counting
incentives or rebates. If the cars are comparable (same equipment,
same general size) why won't I want to buy the cheaper one, assuming
similar quality? 3) Then there is the question of what used cars
actually sell for. It is my experience that the used car prices you
pull off the web are unrealistically high. I usually get stuck selling
my sister's used cars and I've never been able to match the prices
these sorts of web sites claim. I just sold my sister's 1997 Civic. We
started out listing the car at the KBB website price - got no calls.
We lower it a couple of hundred, still no calls. After we were down
$500, we got some interest, but mostly low ball offers. After a month
of trying we finally got interest when we were over a thousand less
than the KBB price for a Civic in "fair" condition. We finally sold
it, but know where near the price indicated by these sites. 4) What
happens after 10 years?

I also wonder about your picks as far as equivalence. I looked at the
2003 Ford Taurus compared to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.

A 2003 Taurus SES had an MSRP of $21480, guestimate for actual cost -
$18,500. For this price you got the automatic, air, power windows,
power locks, power drivers seat, am/fm/cd, ABS, V6, cruise control,
etc.

A 2003 Camry SE V6 had an MSRP of $23265 (almost $2k more) -
guestimate for actual cost $23265. For this price you got essentially
the same equipment as for the Taurus. However, the car had less
interior and cargo room and the safety rating were not as good.

A 2003 Honda Accord EX V6 had an MSRP of $25800 - guestimate for
actual cost $25800, but at this price it had leather seating surfaces
(others were cloth). Other than the leather, the features were similar
to the other two. Again, the Accord was smaller than the Taurus but
the safety rating were as good.

For used car prices (average "trade-in" from NADA):

Ford Taurus SES - $5350
Toyota Camry SE V6 - $11,050
Honda Accord EX V6 - $13,000

Actual Depreciation (versus cost, not MSRP)-

Ford Taurus SES - $18,500 - $5350 = $13,150 / 71%
Toyota Camry SE V6 - $23,265 - $11,050 = $12,215 / 53%
Honda Accord EX V6 - $25,800 - $13,000 = $12,800 / 50%

The way I look at it, the three cars all cost about the same to own
for five years based solely on depreciation (they all depreciated
about $2600) per year). The Ford looks much worse on a percentage
basis, but that is just because the Toyota and Honda cost a lot more
when new. I suspect if I picked a longer period, the Ford would
actually look a lot better. And if you are borrowing to buy the car,
the Ford probably cost less per year for depreciation plus interest
for the five year period. What should really be obvious is how smart
it would be to buy a 1 or 2 year old Taurus instead of a new car in
this class. You get the benefit of the high initial depreciation and a
bigger car.

The domestic manufacturers have recognized the pricing problem caused
by high fleet sales. Their new products were competing against 1 or 2
year old fleet cars dumped on the market. This depressed prices and
demand for otherwise similar new and used cars. All the domestic
manufacturers are cutting back on fleet sales.

And it is not just domestic manufacturers that offer rebates and
incentive. Toyota is currently offering rebates on Camrys. And before
the latest run-up in gasoline prices they were actually offering
incentives on the Prius.

Ed

>
>I have a few problems with your methodology.


I like this unbiased methodology. It's simply done, easy to
understand and shows logic. The cars chosen were not new but 2003 and
your sister didn't buy/sell one. And it's correctly prepared with
take it with a grain of salt warnings.


You seem to have problems with everything ever written in this news
group. What is it that you are so afraid of? Does your mommy know
you whine in this news group? You are coming across as a little boy
no experience turnip from small town nowhere. Think big and see a
bigger picture.

P

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:40:55 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:
>> The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close
>> among the brands.
>> ***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test

> >That would be one of
>> the
>> resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be
>> competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and
>> rebates simply to unbury their previous customers.


>I have a few problems with your methodology. 1) You are basing the
>initial costs on MSRP. It has been my experience that I can usually
>buy domestic for thousands under MSRP, while Toyotas and Honda often
>actually sell for more than MSRP when you throw in the BS that the
>dealers add (high doc fees, protectant packages, etc). I'd think this
>means your estimates for the original cost are off by at least a
>couple of thousand.

As mentioned in there, I played MSRP against MSRP.

Yes, the domestics have been throwing out various incentives, some
large, some small for years.

Both sides are negotiable and both sides have doc fees, paint crap,
pinstripes, etc. that the idiot dealers tack on. Thankfully I have
never paid them and never intended to. Many do and they are set by
stealerships, not by the company. Would you be able to base the
current figures on something like a Nissan GT-R which is trading hands
at $30-60k over sticker in 5 years or my personal car which someone
paid $10k over sticker to get an early one, put 900 miles on it, and
sold it to me for nearly half what they paid for it? Such a far range
skews things too much. MSRP to MSRP which is the price manufacturers
believe their products *should* be worth seemed the most resonable
thing for this fast comparrison.

In this attempt I was keeping apples to apples based on Moroney
Sticker. As it is, I have bought several cars for significantly less
than their average market by being patient and waiting for the perfect
opportunity. If you take it that way, it's way to easy to skew the
#'s any direction you wish. Also, there is no record that I can find
that would show what the incentives/rebates were at that time period.
I just picked 5 years as that's what the average loan used to be (now
moving from 60 months toward 72 which, frankly, means you can't afford
the car). A fair # of cars are traded/sold at around the 50k or 5 year
mark so it was a valid reference point.

Also, used cars will naturally be all over the map, however, there is
some national level consistency that Edmunds uses. Their numbers are
based on reported sale prices in the preceeding 15 or 30 days across
the nation then broken down by zip code. That, to me, is a fair
representation. Each car being different, however, will carry a
different price.

>2) I don't get your point about not counting
>incentives or rebates. If the cars are comparable (same equipment,
>same general size) why won't I want to buy the cheaper one, assuming
>similar quality?

As mentioned above, there was no info that I could readily find on
what those incentives and rebates were and which region/dealerships
honored them. Most of the time those are used to get people out from
under the car they are currently buried in anyhow. Without that info
being handy, it wasn't comparable. If they thought their product was
worth the lower amount then they should have fixed the price instead
of offering rebates. If you think about the primary purpose, rebates
and incentives are used to entice the movement of products that are
not selling on their own merits or value. If the car was worth $XX
then it would have sold at $XX not $XX-Rebate.

> 3) Then there is the question of what used cars
>actually sell for. It is my experience that the used car prices you
>pull off the web are unrealistically high.

> I usually get stuck selling
>my sister's used cars and I've never been able to match the prices
>these sorts of web sites claim. I just sold my sister's 1997 Civic. We
>started out listing the car at the KBB website price - got no calls.
>We lower it a couple of hundred, still no calls. After we were down
>$500, we got some interest, but mostly low ball offers. After a month
>of trying we finally got interest when we were over a thousand less
>than the KBB price for a Civic in "fair" condition. We finally sold
>it, but know where near the price indicated by these sites. 4) What
>happens after 10 years?

KBB is one of the highest and most 'out there' prices you will ever
find and in virtually no way does it reflect reality other than to
make people think they are saving money. NADA is another culprit. In
both KBB and NADA you have to ask WHICH of the 4-6 books they are
using as the numbers change dramatically.

>I also wonder about your picks as far as equivalence. I looked at the
>2003 Ford Taurus compared to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
>A 2003 Taurus SES had an MSRP of $21480, guestimate for actual cost -
>$18,500. For this price you got the automatic, air, power windows,
>power locks, power drivers seat, am/fm/cd, ABS, V6, cruise control,
>etc.
>A 2003 Camry SE V6 had an MSRP of $23265 (almost $2k more) -
>guestimate for actual cost $23265. For this price you got essentially
>the same equipment as for the Taurus. However, the car had less
>interior and cargo room and the safety rating were not as good.

I did not (as mentioned) go into great detail about optional extras
nor did I care a whit what the crash ratings were. After all, unless
you are being crashed into in a science lab, they are often worthless
other than feel-good numbers. If they have so much better value in
those ratings would it not be better reflected in their resale values?
Car to car I tried to keep them as base-model comparable for typical
options on a typical car. Hence the SES (probably about 70-80% of
Taurus' against the SE Camry which is about 70-80% of the V6 models.
That's V6 to V6, model to model, not skewed like the top line Camry to
the base line Taurus).

>For used car prices (average "trade-in" from NADA):

As a general rule you can take pretty much any of the NADA #'s and
throw them out the window unless you cite WHICH of the 6 books you are
using. Yes. 6 books. If you are really careful around some old school
used car dealers you will have fun with them. They are usually yellow,
blue, or black. You will have what looks like an identical book save
for a changed letter after the date of release. One is for retail, one
is for wholesale, one is for trade, one is for loan, etc. It is very
common to watch them pull out a book, show you the value of your trade
in (generally out of the wholesale, not even the trade book), put the
book back in their pocket and when pointing out the car you are
looking at (generally a used one) they will pull the same LOOKING book
but from the other pocket which shows retail values... The difference
can be thousands. Some places still do this sort of crap and it's
hillarious catching them at it.

Next, take into account NADA and where it came from. National Auto
Deales Association. Who do you think owns and supports them? Who's
numbers do you think they want to represent? Why do they need 6 books
if the values are the same? <grin>

>The way I look at it, the three cars all cost about the same to own
>for five years based solely on depreciation (they all depreciated
>about $2600) per year). The Ford looks much worse on a percentage
>basis, but that is just because the Toyota and Honda cost a lot more
>when new.

If you really want scary take the typical Taurus SES. In our area
about 3-4 years ago you could buy a brand new one for a sticker of
around $23k, after rebates about $20-21k. Or, you could buy EXACTLY
the same car of the SAME YEAR with 4,500 miles, and they had *asking*
prices of $10,999 to $11,500 with usually around 20 to choose from.
Yep, rental fleet cars. A 50% depreciation in the same year with only
4,500 miles is not exactly a bargain by anyone's book unless they want
a significant tax write off.

>I suspect if I picked a longer period, the Ford would
>actually look a lot better. And if you are borrowing to buy the car,
>the Ford probably cost less per year for depreciation plus interest
>for the five year period. What should really be obvious is how smart
>it would be to buy a 1 or 2 year old Taurus instead of a new car in
>this class. You get the benefit of the high initial depreciation and a
>bigger car.

I disagree on one point but quite agree on another. Overall the
depreciation curve on most domestics seems to drop like a rock for 2
years, taper down for about 2 years, drop again for 5 (like a rock at
that) then plane out were usually around the 10-12 year cars run
within a few hundred of cars much older. The imports still drop
throughout but when graphed it usually seems more like a level graph
devoid of the dramatic pitfalls. I can't help but wonder if this
might be affected by significant rebate years, or really lame things
like the Employee Pricing where everyone who bought before is
destroyed by depreciation.

The point I very much agree on is in buying a very lightly used 1-2
year old car and driving it for a long while. Once in a while this
doesn't work (can't find what you want used or in some cases the used
ones with 30-50k stay within $2-3k of a new model, case in point the
Mazda 3 hatchback). I will usually hunt for such a bargain and have
been very lucky in a few. For those who have to have the newest of
the new, well, they get to pay the new-factor and it's only new for a
day...

>The domestic manufacturers have recognized the pricing problem caused
>by high fleet sales. Their new products were competing against 1 or 2
>year old fleet cars dumped on the market. This depressed prices and
>demand for otherwise similar new and used cars. All the domestic
>manufacturers are cutting back on fleet sales.

This is also true. Or at least they are trying to. Many of them have
started dumping back into fleets to move the cars that are overfilling
ltos and causing plant shut-downs. They are graded on a few financial
factors some of which include amount of product made. That's an area
where I'd get in way over my head real fast as I don't think any one
person could master all the intangibles that go into that sort of
factoring.

>And it is not just domestic manufacturers that offer rebates and
>incentive. Toyota is currently offering rebates on Camrys. And before
>the latest run-up in gasoline prices they were actually offering
>incentives on the Prius.

Toyota has recently started offering incentives, so has Honda I
believe. If not at the manufacturer level there are a few dealerships
around here discounting them like crazy. Frankly, as bad as the car
market is right now, everyone is doing anything they can to draw some
sort of a revenue stream.

We just had one Ford dealer fold, two more have already lost their
floor planning, another Chevy dealer who has been around for over 100
years is about to shutter it's doors and there is a 2nd (of 3) that is
struggling to keep their floorplan going. The toyota and honda
dealers are still going pretty strong but not nearly as strong as they
were (down at least 30% or more). Of the Ford and GM dealerships I
am thinking of, they have averaged 300-380 cars month in and month
out. From a few people who used to be there and a few who still are,
they are struggling to reach 60-70 cars a month. That doesn't pay the
bills anymore and they are all quite a bit behind. I have to wonder
what the long term situation will be for the auto dealers in general,
not to mention the manufacturers.

If you want to see something depressing, go into one of the big
dealerships mid-week, bypass the first two or three people who are
fighting to get 'their up' and take a look at the expressions of those
inside the dealerships. Panic, bankruptcy, divorce, forclosure,
reposession... These words are virtually scarlet letters across their
forheads... It's so bad now that even though I'm in the market for
another car I'm avoiding these places like the plague!


Back on the original part, the methodology was meant to be very basic
and if anything your numbers pretty much confirmed the same basic % of
losses. It wasn't meant to be scientific. Could be worse.. Could
have been based off of a JD Power Survey where everyone is a winner!
<gaggggg>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:13:29 GMT, wrote:


>>I have a few problems with your methodology.

>I like this unbiased methodology. It's simply done, easy to
>understand and shows logic. The cars chosen were not new but 2003 and
>your sister didn't buy/sell one. And it's correctly prepared with
>take it with a grain of salt warnings.

Thank you for taking it the way in which it was intended.

>You seem to have problems with everything ever written in this news
>group. What is it that you are so afraid of? Does your mommy know
>you whine in this news group? You are coming across as a little boy
>no experience turnip from small town nowhere. Think big and see a
>bigger picture.

I'm not sure about a problem with everything ever written. I can
usually see that he has problems with that KRP lad but then again
everyone seems to take exception to his lack of consistency. He did
respond to me in quite a reasonable tone, didn't set out to bash or
anything. He simply stated why he disagreed and backed it up with what
he thought was appropriate information. I'll happily respond to that
kind of post all day. It's the whining fantasy-types who pull their
facts and such from thin-air, make up the data as they go along, and
when proven incorrect whine, scream, bash, and name call like a 12
year old. That would be more likely how this KPR guy will respond.

Ashton Crusher > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:23:43 GMT, " krp" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> hard to be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck
>>>>>>>> compared to many foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep
>>>>>>>> main bearing seals on the GM 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the
>>>>>>>> engine passes 6k rpm the seals are likely to go. GM has never
>>>>>>>> been able to build an efficient a/c system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this
>>>>>>> stuff from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was
>>>>>> particularly a problem with main seals.That persisted through the
>>>>>> 80's into the 90's.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't even be consistent with your own quote that you left in
>>>>> this post. Come on krm - spin up another twist. It's fun to watch
>>>>> you wind up.
>>>>
>>>> Please TRY to folllow, will you? I said 3.8 Liter and above. 4.3
>>>> Liter is ABOVE 3.8, isn't it?
>>>> Or in your world is 4.3 liters SMALLER than 3.8 litres?
>>>
>>> Hint: You stated... "But from a reliability view they ***still***
>>> suck compared to many foreign brands." (emphasis added). Then you
>>> came back with "persisted through the 80's into the 90's.". Perhaps
>>> this would be a good time to advise you that this is currently the
>>> year 2008. How do you reconcile the word "still", with the phrase
>>> "through the 80's and into the 90's"? This is just typical of your
>>> style of argument throughout this thread.
>>
>> Ford and GM cars into the 90's were still ****!!!!! The cars of
>> 2008
>>are not as bad as they were a decade ago, but the foreign cars (some
>>of them) are still MUCH better than American cars.
>>
>>
>>
>
> that's total BS. Look at the JD Powers numbers, there is barely any
> difference at all between they typical import and domestic.
>

how do the "imports" and "domestics" compare in resale value?

I'm thinking about their quality after a couple of years on the road.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...

> Speaking of Buick.... If it's such an 'old man's car', why is it one
> of the hottest selling cars in China??? Could it be that the Chinese
> have not been brainwashed into believing it and simply evaluate the
> car based on what it is? And deciding that they actually find it a
> very good car?

Seems that is mostly the Minivan and SUV's.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard
>>>> to
>>>> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many
>>>> foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the
>>>> GM
>>>> 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are
>>>> likely
>>>> to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system.
>>
>>> What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff
>>> from?
>>
>> From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was
>> particularly
>>a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's.
>>
>
> Gee, that must be why my 89 4.3 at 184,000 original miles with neither
> the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from
> ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it.

Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm?