Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

Pretty much found not guilty do to entrapment defense. He wasn't looking
for trouble. Trouble found him.... at least that is what the jury
concluded. Of course he was caught also falsifying expense reports by
overcharging for meals..... don't remember if they ever charged him for
that.



"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rocket Man wrote:
> >
> > ...probably THE opposite end of the spectrum from Bob
> > Lutz, Zora Duntov or John DeLorean, who...understand
> > you don't market cars like laundry soap.
>
> Yeah but if the press reports were correct, Mr. DeLorean got involved in
> a different kind of white powdery stuff to try to keep his company
> afloat.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Art wrote:

> You guys seem to feel that unethical MBA's are screwing things up. I
> disagree. I believe that stupid over-confident people who are too dumb to
> know what they don't know do the greatest damage to our free enterprise
> system. They sound good, interview well, get promoted and don't know crap
> no matter how much schooling they have.

Well, that also is the problem with MBAs. They spent years in
corporate finishing school learning how to push all the
management happy buttons instead of anything useful.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:38:15 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Cloaked wrote:
>
>> I may not like some of the crap that DC has put out - like the PT
>> cruiser
>
>By all accounts, the PT Cruiser is a very well made, very reliable, very
>versatile (and obviously very popular) car. Be careful not to confuse
>bad stuff with stuff you just don't like -- they are not the same thing.

Actually, I like the looks of the PT Cruiser. However, I have seen -
at least locally - many of them have problems. I was in a ferry line
up right beside one last year. The guy was cussing the thing out. It
was one week old, and the engine was not running properly The dealer
told him that it would be a three week wait to look at the car.

I talked with my brother about the PT cruiser, and he said they had
nothing but problems and were frequently having to be towed out of
their yard at work.

I dunno. Does not sound good to me. I admit that my experience is by
no means comprehensive, but I just am not getting a warm & fuzzy on
the PT. Perhaps my observances are just not typical of the product.

>
>> The A604 appears to be the first of its kind. And I bet that DC
>> has learned a LOT, and is making it better than ever.
>
>Quite so. I'm aware of at least one individual who snaps-up every
>transmission he can get out of recent-model, low-miles Mopar wrecks. He
>removes the working components, discards the housing, and installs the
>working components in earlier-model housings. His shop's business is
>booming because he's known as the guy who fixes A604 transmissions "all
>the way fixed".
>
>> I drove GM for over 20 years. Products that were produced between 1968,
>> and 1995. I can truly say that while some of the creature comfort stuff
>> got better, the overall designs just got worse and worse.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Cars that ate brakes like candy, bad steering racks, A/C systems that
>> required major repairs immmediately after the warranty expired
>
>Remember when GM-Harrison air conditioners were widely known to be
>problem-free over several decades? (Remember when Chrysler Corp. was
>widely known as the builder of the world's best automatic transmissions?)
>

Ya, I do. GM A/C used to be so reliable it was awesome - and it was
more like refrigeration than A/C ! ))

>> I actually like my GC, even with all its quirks. That 3.3 l engine is
>> reliable, and easy to service.
>
>The 3.3 has the same daddy as the slant-6, 318, 2.2, and a lot of other
>excellent Chryco engines.
>

AhhhhhH!!!! THAT explains it! That puppy is a work horse! Thanks for
the info! (ya learn something new every day


>> There is a REASON that GM's market share has dwindled over the years.
>> And at the root os it is BAD MANAGEMENT.
>
>Yep.
>
>DS

cloaked wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:38:15 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Cloaked wrote:
>>
>>> I may not like some of the crap that DC has put out - like the PT
>>> cruiser
>>
>>By all accounts, the PT Cruiser is a very well made, very reliable, very
>>versatile (and obviously very popular) car. Be careful not to confuse
>>bad stuff with stuff you just don't like -- they are not the same thing.
>
> Actually, I like the looks of the PT Cruiser. However, I have seen -
> at least locally - many of them have problems. I was in a ferry line
> up right beside one last year. The guy was cussing the thing out. It
> was one week old, and the engine was not running properly The dealer
> told him that it would be a three week wait to look at the car.
>
> I talked with my brother about the PT cruiser, and he said they had
> nothing but problems and were frequently having to be towed out of
> their yard at work.
>
> I dunno. Does not sound good to me. I admit that my experience is by
> no means comprehensive, but I just am not getting a warm & fuzzy on
> the PT. Perhaps my observances are just not typical of the product.
>
>>
>>> The A604 appears to be the first of its kind. And I bet that DC
>>> has learned a LOT, and is making it better than ever.
>>
>>Quite so. I'm aware of at least one individual who snaps-up every
>>transmission he can get out of recent-model, low-miles Mopar wrecks. He
>>removes the working components, discards the housing, and installs the
>>working components in earlier-model housings. His shop's business is
>>booming because he's known as the guy who fixes A604 transmissions "all
>>the way fixed".
>>
>>> I drove GM for over 20 years. Products that were produced between 1968,
>>> and 1995. I can truly say that while some of the creature comfort stuff
>>> got better, the overall designs just got worse and worse.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> Cars that ate brakes like candy, bad steering racks, A/C systems that
>>> required major repairs immmediately after the warranty expired
>>
>>Remember when GM-Harrison air conditioners were widely known to be
>>problem-free over several decades? (Remember when Chrysler Corp. was
>>widely known as the builder of the world's best automatic transmissions?)
>>
>
> Ya, I do. GM A/C used to be so reliable it was awesome - and it was
> more like refrigeration than A/C ! ))
>
>>> I actually like my GC, even with all its quirks. That 3.3 l engine is
>>> reliable, and easy to service.
>>
>>The 3.3 has the same daddy as the slant-6, 318, 2.2, and a lot of other
>>excellent Chryco engines.
>>
>
> AhhhhhH!!!! THAT explains it! That puppy is a work horse! Thanks for
> the info! (ya learn something new every day
>
>
>>> There is a REASON that GM's market share has dwindled over the years.
>>> And at the root os it is BAD MANAGEMENT.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>DS
Funny how different people can have such varying opinions. We had a Voyager
(caravan with a different grill) minivan. It ate brakes, the steering rack
was bad at 100k, the AC system failed and took out the radiator fan (it
shared a fuseable link until I split them) twice. It cost me over $300 to
get it recharged and it still couldn't cool down the van. The 3.3L started
to get a bad tick on cold startup at 120k even though I changed the oil
every 3k. I got two different dealers to offer us $1000 for it before
looking at it. The first one handed the keys back and told us to keep it
after we close the deal on the Impala. The second one when I bought my S10
I brought it over at night at closing time and took off before they could
look at it closely. I used a broom to knock all the peeling paint off the
hood so it at least looked somewhat smooth and parked it away from the
light
My S10, I'm surprised the heat hasn't metled the dash in the winter and the
cold gave me frostbite the first time I used it. It can actually make it
up the mountain on the way to my parents house without getting a line of
traffic behind me like the van could and the s10 is the little 2.2L! We
had to take the van to the dealer the first time the Fuseable link blew and
burned up the whole wiring harnes, three times for the ABS recall, twice to
turn off the "maint required" light, Plus it kept stalling due to a poorly
designed connector in the crank sensor circuit, and all the little parts I
had to replace and the $ I paid having the stalling diagnosed.
I may not be fond of some of what gm is putting out today but its certainly
better than others.

"Art" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Just because some people are unethical, that doesn't mean you have to be.
> If everyone in the chain above was ethical, being ethical would not be a
> challenge. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to accept the challenge of
> being the first ethical person in the chain of command.

In the long run it wasn't worth the trouble. I got laid off and the company
went into receivership shortly after that. Being self-employed is far better
than being the ethical man at the bottom of an unethical chain of command...

-'dreas

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:33:36 GMT, "dreas" > wrote:

>
>"Art" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>> Just because some people are unethical, that doesn't mean you have to be.
>> If everyone in the chain above was ethical, being ethical would not be a
>> challenge. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to accept the challenge of
>> being the first ethical person in the chain of command.
>
>In the long run it wasn't worth the trouble. I got laid off and the company
>went into receivership shortly after that. Being self-employed is far better
>than being the ethical man at the bottom of an unethical chain of command...
>
>-'dreas
>
>

Talk about STRESS! Been there, done that.

Olds was considered to be a test bed for GM. The 1949 Futuramic (?) with
the rocket 88 was an example. The designer of the engine made a short
stroke OHV with hollow push rods which was the precurser of the Chevy
small block. Cadillac also used a version of the same engine at the same
time.
Olds had the hydramatic transmission, Rocket 88 engine, autronic eye, I
think the first A/C in GM cars, 12 volt ignition in 1953. Great
engineers. Where did they go wrong?

In article >, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> sense. Look at it this way: If a '57 Chevy was sentimental to GM,
> Chevrolet would still be making 'em, right?

No, they wouldn't because few would buy them.

> Well, almost everything. But these days, my car is
> like a Frigid-Aire, just a thing to use up and throw away when I'm done
> with it.

A disposable society is not sustainable. I don't buy large things to
use and throw away in a short time, an automobile or major appliance
being in that catagory. Both should last a very long time.

> Don't fall in love with your car, no matter what make and model.
> Has anybody here seen a DeLorean in person? I have and its nothing
> special. Its not valuable because they made too many of them, maybe
> 20,000.

I don't want to drive a hunk of **** that cost 20-30 grand and needs to
be replaced every two years either. That's what GM for the most part
wants us to buy and drive.

> DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, LaSalle, & Hupmobile, all those cars
> are gone now forever and ever after. Famous cars too, now history, but no
> use mopping over them and shedding tears. Daimler-Chrysler didn't think
> twice when they dumped the DeSoto, so why should I?

Keep buying garbage and filling the landfills. You and millions of others,
many of which are in debt up to their eyeballs. Me? I like to buy a car
and keep the thing for a good long time. I would rather the car cost a
little more and be built better, perform better and last longer than a
little less and fall apart and perform poorly. Olds was the former and
GM made it the later. That's the point here.

You've excepted buying crap, some of us haven't. The automakers
and the rest of the corporate drones want us to all except buying crap
and short replacement cycles for all products. Some of us won't
be that way. Olds buyers were amung those that didn't fall for it and
for the most part went elsewhere.

dreas wrote:
>
> In the long run it wasn't worth the trouble. I got laid off and the company
> went into receivership shortly after that.

Much better to get laid off from such a firm than to be still employed there when it
goes TU.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> But these days, my car is
> like a Frigid-Aire, just a thing to use up and throw away when I'm done
> with it. Don't fall in love with your car, no matter what make and model.

Boy, are *you* in the wrong newsgroup!

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.