Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:21:43 GMT, " krp" > wrote:

>
>Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD?
>
Had a Galaxy 500XL that had the hood held down by elastic bra straps.
I had taken a pass on the "Hood Latch" option.
When that Ford got to backfiring through the carb the hood would open
and close, a few inches, and to somebody looking from the front the
white bra straps would show, appearing to be little teeth inside a
chattering mouth.
This had the effect of personifying the car, so I called her Tina.
When I drove her from Chicago to Hollywood, I had 31 hoods fly off.
Of course I was headed to Hollywood to get a supply of those special
strong Jane Russell wired bras that Howard Hughes had designed, so
that was no big surprise. The Jane Russell bras were nowhere to be
found, even in the old MGM costume storage rooms.
I was told later that Stephen King saw my Galaxy talking and it was
the inspiration for his book "Christine," which also became a movie.
Since the book was based on real life, he made Christine a Plymouth
Fury to avoid paying royalties to me and the Ford Motor Company.
I know this all sounds a bit odd, but there it is.
I junked Tina in 1972 after the engine swam away at Chicago's Rainbow
Beach. I was going back to the car for some suntan lotion and
happened to see the engine sneaking away. When it saw me it broke
into a sprint and ran down to the water to escape.
It was a fast engine and I couldn't catch it.
It left doing a backstroke, and looked to be headed for Escanaba,
Michigan.
It was my fault.
The hood had flown off on the way to the beach, and I had forgotten to
handcuff the engine before I walked to the sand and set up my beach
blanket..
So I don't blame the engine.
That damn car was sweet except for 863 hoods that flew off and the 902
times it caught fire. Loved that car.
Got it used, as it was a FLEET car.
Your turn.

--Vic

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:21:43 GMT, " krp" > wrote:

>
>"C. E. White" > wrote in message
>news:48e4dd75$1@kcnews01...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> It takes a lot more than 'a few bolts' for something like this to
>>>> happen.
>>>
>>> Really? How is the front clip held on in a 65 Ford Galaxie?
>>>
>>
>> The inner fenders / engine compartment walls are connected directly to the
>> firewall. The radiator support is bolted to the main chassis rails at the
>> front.
>
>Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD?
>

Not likely, however the hood also has latches to the front clip as
well as safety catches and, along with the mounts in the back would be
one more thing that would have to fail for the clip to slide off, up
and over the suspension, etc. Face it, epic fail here...and not on
the point of the car.

"PerfectReign" > wrote in message
news:32187908.lG0IfMgPL4@perfectreign...
>>>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular
>>>>> year
>>>>> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine
>>>>> was
>>>>> rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to
>>>>> reach
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved
>>>> past
>>>> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that why they put the little red line there - so you won't go past
>>> it?
>>
>> Most engines don't blow seals at 6K.
>
> Really?
>
> I wonder what my lawnmower engine would do at 6,000K.

Clever. As an encore do you stick your head into an airplane propeller when
it is revving up?

<adventuremyk> wrote in message
...

>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> It takes a lot more than 'a few bolts' for something like this to
>>>>> happen.
>>>>
>>>> Really? How is the front clip held on in a 65 Ford Galaxie?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The inner fenders / engine compartment walls are connected directly to
>>> the
>>> firewall. The radiator support is bolted to the main chassis rails at
>>> the
>>> front.
>>
>>Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD?
>>
>
> Not likely, however the hood also has latches to the front clip

SUPPOSED TO GUY SUPPOSED TO!

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:49:30 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled Vic Smith >, to say:

> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:21:43 GMT, " krp" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Is the radiator BOLTED to the HOOD?
> >
> Had a Galaxy 500XL that had the hood held down by elastic bra straps.


Could you open it with one hand?
--

Life is too short to play cheap guitars.

On Sep 30, 1:46*am, Steve Daniels > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:13:23 -0700 (PDT), against all advice,
> something compelled , to say:
>
> > * *Can smoke the tires on
> > * *takeoff if needed,
>
> My car has a computer that prevents useless wheel spin at
> "takeoff".
> --
>
> "The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics."
>
> Audi Owner's Manual

My car has a little button than is labled "traction control
disabled",, or something to the likes of that.


When I push that little button, for whatever reason, the front wheels
will spin and smoke a whole bunch if I push the accelerator to the
floor on takeoff.


Now, that "may" be considered useless, but this car will do EXACTLY
what I said it will do.


Don't really know what this has to do with the laws of physics,
anyway.


Now why don't you politley get in your Audi and please, take a hike,
son!

On Sep 30, 5:20*am, " krp" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's.
>
> > >> By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Same with Ford..
>
> > > At that time, every car was crap compared to what anyone is turning out
> > > today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars. Anyone
> > > using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly.
>
> > 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. Ford can't
> > build one that doesn't constantly break. Chrysler will freeze you out. My
> > reference to 1970 was that GM and Ford haven't built a decent car since..
> > In
> > fact, I think the last decent Chevy was 1957. Maybe into 1960. Same with
> > Ford. Are the American cars better today? Yeah about as good as a 1990
> > Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate to
> > say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars.
>
> > Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a
> > moron, and stupid, to boot.
> > GM's 3.8 *engine's are bulletproof.
>
> Really? TOTALLY BULLETPROOF? *This is just the INTAKE gaskets.
>
> http://www.dsengine.com/gmgasket/index.html
>
> "Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4
> Liter engines. We have also seen this failure on some of the newer General
> Motors V8 engines."
>
> "The intake manifold gaskets on these engines are prone to failure. After so
> many cycles of heating and cooling the gaskets no longer seal the engine
> coolant passage in the upper portion of the engine. When this seal is
> breached, coolant begins to mix with engine oil. If the failure is caught in
> time, the gasket only need be replaced. If the engine is run for a long time
> the coolant can dilute the engine oil and cause a failure of the engine
> bearings.
> Depending on the severity of the failure your engine could be damaged before
> you know it. In all cases - its important to keep an eye on your gauges and
> warning lights, as it could mean the different between a minor repair and a
> major repair"
>
> BULLETPROOF you said.
>


BULLETPROOF is EXACTLY what I said. Comprehension problems here,
dickweed???


I stand by what I said earlier.


I've owned several GM's with the 3.8 and have had no problems with ANY
of them.

Owned a couple of 3.1's along the way with no problems, either.


Now, I don't think GM would have sold MILLIONS of vechicles with these
engines in them if they were the clunkers you say they were (and are),
unless the millions of us are just not as bright as you are.


Yeah that's probably the reason.


> http://www.alldata.com/TSB/07/830708ir.html
>
> < Got a lot of horsepower, as well.
>
> * * Hmmmmmm ever seen a 4.0 litre Jeep inline 6 drag a Chevy blazer with the
> 4.3? Why does the Jeep win?
>

Why? Because the Blazer spun its tires out on takeoff???

That's the problem I had with my '93' S-10, with the 4.3.


When I learned how to "takeoff" properly, I had no trouble with
against the said Jeep, which, by the way, is an American nameplate,
and thus in the unwritten rules of this GM group, is not allowed. You
can only use foreign brands in comparrison when knocking GM products
here.




> < Put a supercharger on them, and they are downright FAST.




>
> * * Put a supercharge on a Yugo and it gets faster. Who wants a fast turd?- Hide quoted text -
>


Once again, you gotta get better reading comprehensive skills.


My 98 GTP is realible, seats 5 confortably, looks great, handles well,
runs FAST and gets 30 MPG on the highway!

Did I mention that it is a 98 model,which would make it about 11 model
years old???




BTW, I love my cars, and take them seriously. I am also not a violent
person by nature, but if you were standing in front of me and called
my car a turd, I would punch you in the face.


Not that my car is a Yugo, mind you.




> - Show quoted text -

On Sep 30, 5:24*am, " krp" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> When the Honda civic first came out a co-worker bought one. When he
> > >>> drove us to lunch in the summer it was like a sweat box and that was
> > >>> with the AC on high and the car could barely get out of it's own way.
> > >>> He got rid of it after a few years and bought one of the GM Personal
> > >>> Luxury cars that were popular back then. He was SO much happier with
> > >>> his GM.
>
> > >> All the Japanese cars into the mid 80's had rotary compressors on them.
> > >> They were poor at best. The first Japanese cars in America were
> > >> TERRIBLE,
> > >> like the first Korean cars. A 1962 Honda is NOT a 2008 Honda! BUT if
> > >> you
> > >> NEED to make that comparison to feel good about your New American car,
> > >> that's okay too.
> > > Come on - Ashton's comments are very fair as this thread has unfolded..
> > > Look back through this thread and see how many posters have hurled
> > > acclaim
> > > at the Honda's of the 70's which were really pure junk.
>
> > See - here we go again. IF you NEED to call the Honda junk to feel good
> > about your American car HAVE AT IT. Remember the CVCC? That was a Honda..
>
> > > Likewise Toyota (except > for a model or two here and there) and Datusn
> > > (likewise, except for a model here and there). They were major rust
> > > buckets that didn't go 1/2 the mileage of even a Vega (which was not at
> > > all known for it's body integrity), and certainly earned their
> > > reputation
> > > at the time for being pure junk. He was not talking about the Honda of
> > > today - he was taking in context, and in reply to a portion of this
> > > thread
> > > that was making reference to the cars of the 70's.
>
> > Okay okay you sold me the VEGA was the best car ever built. MUCH better
> > than the Rolls Royce. Honda certainly can't build a good Car. CHEVY RULES!
> > The Vette is the FASTEST car EVER built! MUCH faster than the Maseratti
> > and
> > Lamborghini or Ferarri.
>
> > The Honda of 1970 wasn't a great car. In context, however, it was better
> > than the PURE **** coming out of Detroit.
>
> < I can remember as a young adult in the mid 80's reading and hearing
> < about the great virtues of the great and almighty Honda Prelude. They were
> perfect.
>
> * * there is NO such thing as a "perfect" anything on this Earth.
>

Then you, and your kind, need to tone down your praisings of the great
and mighty foreign automobliles when posting on newsgroups.


I've run across your kind many times.

When your hand is called, you ALL same the same thing


"Nobody said Toyotas (or fill in your favorite auto manufacture) was
perfect"


Well, yes you do, until as I mentioned above, your hand is called.


> < God would drive them if he were on earth and needed to.

> < Fast forward to the year 2008, and you can probably find more mid 70's
> < Vegas on the road today than you can than that of the "perfect" Honda
> < of the mid -80's.
>
> * * *Proof????
>
> < If Detroit built "****" during this time period, what did Japan build???
>
> * * Better ****.- Hide quoted text -
>

Well, at least we can both agree that Japan built "****" 20 years ago.



> - Show quoted text -

> wrote in message
...

> > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's.
>
> > >> By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Same with Ford.
>
> > > At that time, every car was crap compared to what anyone is turning
> > > out
> > > today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars.
> > > Anyone
> > > using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly.
>
> > 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. Ford can't
> > build one that doesn't constantly break. Chrysler will freeze you out.
> > My
> > reference to 1970 was that GM and Ford haven't built a decent car since.
> > In
> > fact, I think the last decent Chevy was 1957. Maybe into 1960. Same with
> > Ford. Are the American cars better today? Yeah about as good as a 1990
> > Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate
> > to
> > say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars.
>
> > Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a
> > moron, and stupid, to boot.
> > GM's 3.8 engine's are bulletproof.
>
> Really? TOTALLY BULLETPROOF? This is just the INTAKE gaskets.
>
> http://www.dsengine.com/gmgasket/index.html
>
> "Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4
> Liter engines. We have also seen this failure on some of the newer General
> Motors V8 engines."
>
> "The intake manifold gaskets on these engines are prone to failure. After
> so
> many cycles of heating and cooling the gaskets no longer seal the engine
> coolant passage in the upper portion of the engine. When this seal is
> breached, coolant begins to mix with engine oil. If the failure is caught
> in
> time, the gasket only need be replaced. If the engine is run for a long
> time
> the coolant can dilute the engine oil and cause a failure of the engine
> bearings.
> Depending on the severity of the failure your engine could be damaged
> before
> you know it. In all cases - its important to keep an eye on your gauges
> and
> warning lights, as it could mean the different between a minor repair and
> a
> major repair"
>
> BULLETPROOF you said.
>


BULLETPROOF is EXACTLY what I said. Comprehension problems here,
dickweed???


I stand by what I said earlier.


I've owned several GM's with the 3.8 and have had no problems with ANY
of them.
===========================

Can anyone disagree with your infallibility claim? Or are you GOD?

On Oct 3, 12:32*am, " krp" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >> Granted my experience was at the end of the 60's and early 70's.
>
> > > >> By and large today's GM products are considered crap. Same with Ford.
>
> > > > At that time, every car was crap compared to what anyone is turning
> > > > out
> > > > today. Times have changed and GM and Ford both make decent cars.
> > > > Anyone
> > > > using data from 1970 to make a decision today is just plain silly.
>
> > > 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. Ford can't
> > > build one that doesn't constantly break. Chrysler will freeze you out..
> > > My
> > > reference to 1970 was that GM and Ford haven't built a decent car since.
> > > In
> > > fact, I think the last decent Chevy was 1957. Maybe into 1960. Same with
> > > Ford. Are the American cars better today? Yeah about as good as a 1990
> > > Japanese car. But the Japanese are better than they were in 1990. Hate
> > > to
> > > say this by lowly Hyundai and Kia are better than most American cars.
>
> > > Kr,JSTFK, and while you're at it, take a hike! You're an idiot AND a
> > > moron, and stupid, to boot.
> > > GM's 3.8 engine's are bulletproof.
>
> > Really? TOTALLY BULLETPROOF? This is just the INTAKE gaskets.
>
> >http://www.dsengine.com/gmgasket/index.html
>
> > "Most of the V6 engines from 1995 to 2006. this includes the 3.1 and 3.4
> > Liter engines. We have also seen this failure on some of the newer General
> > Motors V8 engines."
>
> > "The intake manifold gaskets on these engines are prone to failure. After
> > so
> > many cycles of heating and cooling the gaskets no longer seal the engine
> > coolant passage in the upper portion of the engine. When this seal is
> > breached, coolant begins to mix with engine oil. If the failure is caught
> > in
> > time, the gasket only need be replaced. If the engine is run for a long
> > time
> > the coolant can dilute the engine oil and cause a failure of the engine
> > bearings.
> > Depending on the severity of the failure your engine could be damaged
> > before
> > you know it. In all cases - its important to keep an eye on your gauges
> > and
> > warning lights, as it could mean the different between a minor repair and
> > a
> > major repair"
>
> > BULLETPROOF you said.
>
> BULLETPROOF is EXACTLY what I said. Comprehension problems here,
> dickweed???
>
> I stand by what I said earlier.
>
> I've owned several GM's with the 3.8 and have had no problems with ANY
> of them.
> ===========================
>
> Can anyone disagree with your infallibility claim? Or are you GOD?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I'm just a regular person, as opposed to whatever you are.

Just went out and checked my two 3.8 litre powerer Pontiacs just to
make sure make I was not suffering from some kind of illusion, because
we all know that if you said they were ****, that must be the case.

Both started and ran well.

I double checked to see how many miles I had on them.

Triple-checked to see if maybe somehow I forgot and really did have
major engine damage to one of them in the past..


Couldn't find an old bill on any engine repairs of any kind on these,
or other GM cars I have owned in the past.


Then, I checked on the internet to try to find out actual numbers as
to how many 3.8 powered vechicles Gm has sold over the years


Couldn't find any numbers, but saw that they have had this engine in
production for over 30 years.


Seems reasonable to me to think that the production numbers could
total a million or more, several times over.


It would be hard for me to beleive, based on my personal experiecnces
and what I do know about the 3.8 that if it were the crap that you say
it is, it would have NOT been discontinued many years age.

But, what do I know.

Unlike what you are suggesting, I am not "God"


And we all know that it I were "God" I would be driving a Honda,
anyway.