147 & other Alfa owners

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:42:58 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:00:08 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:40:32 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
>>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
>>>>theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
>>>>its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
>>>>caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
>>>>steel for you.
>>>
>>>An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable.
>>
>>Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in
>>the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving.
>
>Sure.
>
>>>The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short
>>>term, when it's galvaneeled and painted.
>>
>>Well, assumingits galvanised and painted right. But with all the
>>shakeups at all ifferent levels of the corp, the financial switching
>>arond and so forth, you'd be amazed. Amazing what you find out when a
>>reletive owns a company that supplies toyotas metal (or rather did,
>>and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the
>>courts for 5 years)
>
>Cite, please.

Case is Pastafont Steel Vs Toyota - if you're able to get the
documents, you'll also know how to find them.

Hachiroku wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:56:51 +0000, tomb wrote:
>> 75%? More like 98%+, especially those with the low profile tires and
>> spinner rims...
>
> Cruising down the Freeway in LA county?

Yeah, there too.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0400, flobert > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:42:58 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:00:08 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:40:32 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
>>>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
>>>>>theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
>>>>>its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
>>>>>caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
>>>>>steel for you.
>>>>
>>>>An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable.
>>>
>>>Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in
>>>the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving.
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>>>The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short
>>>>term, when it's galvaneeled and painted.
>>>
>>>Well, assumingits galvanised and painted right. But with all the
>>>shakeups at all ifferent levels of the corp, the financial switching
>>>arond and so forth, you'd be amazed. Amazing what you find out when a
>>>reletive owns a company that supplies toyotas metal (or rather did,
>>>and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the
>>>courts for 5 years)
>>
>>Cite, please.
>
>Case is Pastafont Steel Vs Toyota

Google search revealed nothing, save one post from one person in a Web
forum.

>- if you're able to get the
>documents, you'll also know how to find them.

There's logic for ya...

Lack of evidence noted.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:48:41 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:42:58 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:00:08 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:40:32 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
>>>>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
>>>>>>theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
>>>>>>its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
>>>>>>caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
>>>>>>steel for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable.
>>>>
>>>>Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in
>>>>the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving.
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>>
>>>>>The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short
>>>>>term, when it's galvaneeled and painted.
>>>>
>>>>Well, assumingits galvanised and painted right. But with all the
>>>>shakeups at all ifferent levels of the corp, the financial switching
>>>>arond and so forth, you'd be amazed. Amazing what you find out when a
>>>>reletive owns a company that supplies toyotas metal (or rather did,
>>>>and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the
>>>>courts for 5 years)
>>>
>>>Cite, please.
>>
>>Case is Pastafont Steel Vs Toyota
>
>Google search revealed nothing, save one post from one person in a Web
>forum.
>
>>- if you're able to get the
>>documents, you'll also know how to find them.
>
>There's logic for ya...
>
>Lack of evidence noted.

yes.. As i suspected, no clue, thinking google knows all and searches
all. So, in reality, you searched only the most public 10% of the web,
and are surprised to find no documents to an upcomming court case. As
I said, if you had any chance of being able to read the documents,
you'd be able to find them. Or, to spell that out in simpler language
for you, If you have either a) the ability to find the documents
through research, checking and deduction, OR if you had access to the
appropriate search engines for the task, then you'd be able to read
the,. A single search on google shows no effort, ability, or
inteligence.

Unlike you, i did some followup checking (which you were too lazy to
do) and i found the poster K`Tetch listed on the court documents,
having some ties to the case (under his real name, which about 20
minutes work found me.

Tis amazing what you can do when you actually a) have a brain and b)
USE IT.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:12:38 -0400, flobert > wrote:

>Tis amazing what you can do when you actually a) have a brain and b)
>USE IT.

Still no evidence form you.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, A strange species called Hachiroku
> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:37:39 +0100, John wrote:
>
>>>Are Spanish made VW's as bad as Mexican made VW's?
>>>
>>>I like the SEAT models, but they don't sell in the US...
>>
>> I think that petty much all the VAG group of cars are well built and
>> reliable. VW, Audi, Seat and even Skoda to name four.
>
>SKODA!!!!! OooooH.
>
>They were actually pretty neat cars, but didn't hold up well to Canadian
>winters. I liked the way the trunk (in the front) opened from the pavement.
>
>>
>> Some of the more recent Seat models have been designed by former Alfa
>> Romeo designers, as well as being influenced by Audi Concept designs.
>
>Explains the nice designs.
>
>>
>> Seat use the same parts used in a lot of VWs. Ibiza has the same
>> chassis and engines as the Polo, the Leon the same as the Golf. Often
>> the Seat counterpart to the VW outperforms the VW one. Of course the
>> VW has better interior etc.
>
>Explains the Recalls and the repairs???
>
>GOLFs have a terrible record here. They WILL go 300,000 Mi, but you'll
>have to repair them a lot!

I don't think a Golf is designed to last for that amount of milage. I
think this is another one of the big differences between cars designed
for the North American market and the British and European markets.
It would almost certainly need constant repairs and maintenance if you
got anywhere near that milage.

Bigger engined cars and SUVs designed for North America are designed
to last a long time and go past 150k. Most British and European cars
with smaller engines, including Golfs are not designed for this. We
usually replace our cars before they get anywhere near 80,000 Miles on
the clock.

It may also be because of the higher standards and inspections etc and
tests that cars have to go through over here. In North America you can
drive cars that have bits and pieces falling off and have been damaged
in crashes without any issues from the authorities. Well as long as
the tail-lights work you're good to go. In the UK you'd never get away
with driving some of the cars you see on American roads. They just
wouldn't allow you to drive, they would be deemed unroadworthy.

You wouldn't have any problems with a modern Golf that is produced in
Europe for the UK and European markets.

John

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:47:32 +0100, John wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, A strange species called Hachiroku
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:37:39 +0100, John wrote:
>>
>>>>Are Spanish made VW's as bad as Mexican made VW's?
>>>>
>>>>I like the SEAT models, but they don't sell in the US...
>>>
>>> I think that petty much all the VAG group of cars are well built and
>>> reliable. VW, Audi, Seat and even Skoda to name four.
>>
>>SKODA!!!!! OooooH.
>>
>>They were actually pretty neat cars, but didn't hold up well to Canadian
>>winters. I liked the way the trunk (in the front) opened from the pavement.
>>
>>>
>>> Some of the more recent Seat models have been designed by former Alfa
>>> Romeo designers, as well as being influenced by Audi Concept designs.
>>
>>Explains the nice designs.
>>
>>>
>>> Seat use the same parts used in a lot of VWs. Ibiza has the same
>>> chassis and engines as the Polo, the Leon the same as the Golf. Often
>>> the Seat counterpart to the VW outperforms the VW one. Of course the
>>> VW has better interior etc.
>>
>>Explains the Recalls and the repairs???
>>
>>GOLFs have a terrible record here. They WILL go 300,000 Mi, but you'll
>>have to repair them a lot!
>
> I don't think a Golf is designed to last for that amount of milage. I
> think this is another one of the big differences between cars designed
> for the North American market and the British and European markets.
> It would almost certainly need constant repairs and maintenance if you
> got anywhere near that milage.
>
> Bigger engined cars and SUVs designed for North America are designed
> to last a long time and go past 150k.

Wanna bet? When I was a kid it was unusual to see a car older than 10
years old on the road. Of course, these days things ARE different...thanks
to the Japanese! Adapt or die!


> Most British and European cars
> with smaller engines, including Golfs are not designed for this. We
> usually replace our cars before they get anywhere near 80,000 Miles on
> the clock.

'85 Celica=254,000
'85 Corolla=259,000
'88 Supra=185,000


>
> It may also be because of the higher standards and inspections etc and
> tests that cars have to go through over here. In North America you can
> drive cars that have bits and pieces falling off and have been damaged
> in crashes without any issues from the authorities. Well as long as
> the tail-lights work you're good to go. In the UK you'd never get away
> with driving some of the cars you see on American roads. They just
> wouldn't allow you to drive, they would be deemed unroadworthy.

There used to be a guy here from NZ, and they have a tough inspection
also. A friend of his got rejected 'cause the door hinges were worn!!
I have never seen that happen here. They have tightened up in the last few
years; it's hardeer to kludge a car together to get it to pass.

i think this is because they don't emissions test anything older than
1984, so this is a good way to get the older cars off the road.


>
> You wouldn't have any problems with a modern Golf that is produced in
> Europe for the UK and European markets.
>
> John


I had a German built Jetta and it sucked...

Shame...it was a COOL car, but in two years I had 4 times as many RO's as
I did for a 6 YO Toyota!

<snip>
>
> There used to be a guy here from NZ, and they have a tough inspection
> also. A friend of his got rejected 'cause the door hinges were worn!!
> I have never seen that happen here. They have tightened up in the last few
> years; it's hardeer to kludge a car together to get it to pass.
>
> i think this is because they don't emissions test anything older than
> 1984, so this is a good way to get the older cars off the road.
>
<snip>

The inspection here in NZ is fairly tough, but only on safety issues.
There is no emmission testing for any vehicle that I am aware of.
Greg

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:47:32 +0100, John > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, A strange species called Hachiroku
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:37:39 +0100, John wrote:
>>
>>>>Are Spanish made VW's as bad as Mexican made VW's?
>>>>
>>>>I like the SEAT models, but they don't sell in the US...
>>>
>>> I think that petty much all the VAG group of cars are well built and
>>> reliable. VW, Audi, Seat and even Skoda to name four.
>>
>>SKODA!!!!! OooooH.
>>
>>They were actually pretty neat cars, but didn't hold up well to Canadian
>>winters. I liked the way the trunk (in the front) opened from the pavement.
>>
>>>
>>> Some of the more recent Seat models have been designed by former Alfa
>>> Romeo designers, as well as being influenced by Audi Concept designs.
>>
>>Explains the nice designs.
>>
>>>
>>> Seat use the same parts used in a lot of VWs. Ibiza has the same
>>> chassis and engines as the Polo, the Leon the same as the Golf. Often
>>> the Seat counterpart to the VW outperforms the VW one. Of course the
>>> VW has better interior etc.
>>
>>Explains the Recalls and the repairs???
>>
>>GOLFs have a terrible record here. They WILL go 300,000 Mi, but you'll
>>have to repair them a lot!
>
>I don't think a Golf is designed to last for that amount of milage. I
>think this is another one of the big differences between cars designed
>for the North American market and the British and European markets.
>It would almost certainly need constant repairs and maintenance if you
>got anywhere near that milage.
>
>Bigger engined cars and SUVs designed for North America are designed
>to last a long time and go past 150k. Most British and European cars
>with smaller engines, including Golfs are not designed for this. We
>usually replace our cars before they get anywhere near 80,000 Miles on
>the clock.

My 'big engined' (well 3l) dodge is at 160k miles, and probably won't
last another year. It's probably going to need a neew tranny, some
throttle and fuel work. Not even 20 years. My european cars (in
europe) are similar age, and going better than ever.

in the US
87 caravan - 164k miles, aboutt o die
88 civic - 227k miles - needs a CV joint, burnt valveguide, and a
slightly cracked radiator
in the UK
89 MG metro - 143k miles, but heavily modified to 160ish bhp
89 volvo340 - my workhorse, 142k miles, a lot of that towing, and with
heavy loads, running as new.

>
>It may also be because of the higher standards and inspections etc and
>tests that cars have to go through over here. In North America you can
>drive cars that have bits and pieces falling off and have been damaged
>in crashes without any issues from the authorities. Well as long as
>the tail-lights work you're good to go. In the UK you'd never get away
>with driving some of the cars you see on American roads. They just
>wouldn't allow you to drive, they would be deemed unroadworthy.

yes, and no. Certain areas have inspections, others don't A car that
is dangerous will still get you pulled over. That includes trailing
bodywork or bald tyres. Even in rural Georgia. Metro atlanta, of
course, just up the road, does also ahve an annual emissions check.

>
>You wouldn't have any problems with a modern Golf that is produced in
>Europe for the UK and European markets.

until it came to an impact, where it'd disintegrate, and you'd be left
with a pile of scrap to be towed away. Watched it happen to a golf
that hit my volvo in 2000. It was a writeoff. Very heavy on the
crumple, not so good on the rigid cage.

>
>John
>

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:08:11 +1200, Greg wrote:

> <snip>
>>
>> There used to be a guy here from NZ, and they have a tough inspection
>> also. A friend of his got rejected 'cause the door hinges were worn!!
>> I have never seen that happen here. They have tightened up in the last few
>> years; it's hardeer to kludge a car together to get it to pass.
>>
>> i think this is because they don't emissions test anything older than
>> 1984, so this is a good way to get the older cars off the road.
>>
> <snip>
>
> The inspection here in NZ is fairly tough, but only on safety issues.
> There is no emmission testing for any vehicle that I am aware of.
> Greg


i should have separated that a little better!

What I meant was the NZ safety inspections are a LOT worse than here.

Here we have emissions testing. Vehicles older than 1984 don't get
emissions testing.

But, Massachusetts has tightened up CONSIDERABLY on safety, prob in an
effort to get the older cars off the road. No more patching rust with Duct
tape, or using lens tape on a broken taillight. You either bondo it,
fiberglas or metal it, and you get a new or used lens.

On a 1983 Tercel wagon, the only reason it was worth it was cause the
wagon was FREE, I wanted a 'project' car I didn't care if I messed up
(damn! It looked pretty good when I finished it!) and parts were readily
at hand for near nothing.

When it started rotting through again last year I said screw it.