fiat

The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......

--
I know I live in my own little world, but it's OK - it's terribly nice, and
they know me there.

Jim.GM4DHJ ...... wrote:
> The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......
>
My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). A 1973 128SL FWD which I
bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a
wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the
cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the
block. Fortunately I had purchased a 12 month warranty when I bought it.
Other problems in the next 3 years... Oil pressure sending unit failed
which shut down the fuel pump leaving be stranded far from home. Hood
hinge broke. Clutch cable broke. Front struts developed a clink and I
was advised they needed to be replaced. Couldn't afford it so they
stayed clinking. Rust around the windshield frame. CV boots (every FWD
car I have owned has had CV boot problems)

Even if FIAT has improved their POS cars since then, the damage is done.
I am done with FIAT and FWD.

Why I bought a Mustang GT. RWD, a 5 speed and a V8.

note: There must be a way to drive the front wheels with out CV joints
and their flimsy boots. I owned a Jeep 4X4 and it was able to engage
the front end and its system did not use boots and it did not break. Ever.

On May 1, 2:00*pm, columbotrek > wrote:

> note: *There must be a way to drive the front wheels with out CV joints
> and their flimsy boots. *I owned a Jeep 4X4 and it was able to engage
> the front end and its system did not use boots and it did not break. *Ever.

Yes, it's called a solid front axle.
It does not contribute to a well handling car.

rd

"columbotrek" > wrote in message
...
> Jim.GM4DHJ ...... wrote:
>> The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......
>>
> My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). A 1973 128SL FWD which I
> bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a
> wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the
> cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the
> block. Fortunately I had purchased a 12 month warranty when I bought it.
> Other problems in the next 3 years... Oil pressure sending unit failed
> which shut down the fuel pump leaving be stranded far from home. Hood
> hinge broke. Clutch cable broke. Front struts developed a clink and I was
> advised they needed to be replaced. Couldn't afford it so they stayed
> clinking. Rust around the windshield frame. CV boots (every FWD car I have
> owned has had CV boot problems)

You didn't mention what happened if you were going around a corner on a dirt
road and let off the gas

Al

Big Al wrote:
> "columbotrek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim.GM4DHJ ...... wrote:
>>> The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......
>>>
>> My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). A 1973 128SL FWD which I
>> bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a
>> wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the
>> cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the
>> block. Fortunately I had purchased a 12 month warranty when I bought it.
>> Other problems in the next 3 years... Oil pressure sending unit failed
>> which shut down the fuel pump leaving be stranded far from home. Hood
>> hinge broke. Clutch cable broke. Front struts developed a clink and I was
>> advised they needed to be replaced. Couldn't afford it so they stayed
>> clinking. Rust around the windshield frame. CV boots (every FWD car I have
>> owned has had CV boot problems)
>
> You didn't mention what happened if you were going around a corner on a dirt
> road and let off the gas
>
> Al
>
>
You reminded me of an early lesson in front wheel drive driving. Lets
set the stage here. At 17 in 1974, I acquired for the price of $500.00
a 1968 Chevell. During the two years I drove it, I had learned the art
of down shifting and adding power to help with the corners. I bet you
know where this is going

The first few days I owned my first FWD car, I was jamming along on my
old familiar road a bit on the fast side right up to my curve. Dropped
down a gear before the curve and as I entered it, added power. Do you
believe in guardian angles? The front end washed out and I let off on
the gas. By the time I had any kind of traction me and the car had
crossed into the opposite lane kissing the dirt shoulder and looking
into the front of an on coming car which if had been 5 seconds earlier
or me 5 seconds later, the out come would have been much different than
just getting scared half to death.

While this didn't happen to me, I help pull out a FWD car from the steep
edge of the road one afternoon. Here is how that went down. It had
snowed and the road up to the fun was steep and twisting. Chains were
required and the FWD cars had them on the front. Well, one FWD driver
on his way down managed to swap ends and in so doing swapped his rear
end right off the embankment. The front wheels were on the lip but the
rest of the car was down the hill. FWD helps going up but seems to be a
liability going down.

My drive line experience went like this. RWD, FWD, RWD, AWD, FWD, and
now back to RWD. When it was time to move on from my FWD Probe GT, I had
decided that I was done with FWD and looked long and hard at what is
available in RWD. What did I find? Mustang GT, Dodge Charger, GTO, BMW
337i, Mercedes (naw), Infinity G37 very cool but spendy. All but the
Mustang was pushing 40K. Bang for the buck it was the Mustang GT. Yes,
its possiable to spend 60K on a trick Cobra (GT500). But I am satisfied
with the GT.

On May 1, 11:00*am, columbotrek > wrote:
> Jim.GM4DHJ ...... wrote:
> > The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......
>
> My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). *A 1973 128SL FWD which I
> bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a
> wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the
> cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the
> block. Fortunately I had purchased a 12 month warranty when I bought it.
> Other problems in the next 3 years... *Oil pressure sending unit failed
> which shut down the fuel pump leaving be stranded far from home. Hood
> hinge broke. *Clutch cable broke. Front struts developed a clink and I
> was advised they needed to be replaced. Couldn't afford it so they
> stayed clinking. Rust around the windshield frame. CV boots (every FWD
> car I have owned has had CV boot problems)
>
> Even if FIAT has improved their POS cars since then, the damage is done.
> I am done with FIAT and FWD.
>
> Why I bought a Mustang GT. *RWD, a 5 speed and a V8.
>
> note: *There must be a way to drive the front wheels with out CV joints
> and their flimsy boots. *I owned a Jeep 4X4 and it was able to engage
> the front end and its system did not use boots and it did not break. *Ever.

Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet. To get it, this whole
rancid deal has got to get past a bankruptcy magistrate judge, a
District Court judge, a Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
Funny how these institutions tend to follow the law as it is written
in the law books, and not according to the politically driven whims of
the banana republic dictator currently occupying the White House.

180 Out

On 2009-05-05, > wrote:

> Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet.

Fiat hasn't ruined performance brands it owns/controls such as Ferrari
so I don't see what a problem Fiat ownership would be.

> To get it, this whole
> rancid deal has got to get past a bankruptcy magistrate judge, a
> District Court judge, a Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
> Funny how these institutions tend to follow the law as it is written
> in the law books, and not according to the politically driven whims of
> the banana republic dictator currently occupying the White House.

The government's courts don't follow the law either, they care not for
it. To many judges they are the law. Even without that, in court cases
the judges demand that the juries apply the law as the judges say to
apply it. The jury has complete power to decide the law as well. That's
the point of the jury system, a check on the government from making bad
laws against the will of the people. The juries (of the people) simply
refuse to convict people or apply bad laws.

On May 5, 9:33*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-05-05, > wrote:
>
> > Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet.
>
> Fiat hasn't ruined performance brands it owns/controls such as Ferrari
> so I don't see what a problem Fiat ownership would be.

You're right. A European luxury car maker takes over Chrysler: what
could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, I didn't say one way or the other whether Fiat ownership could
be a problem. It's difficult -- no, impossible -- to imagine
Chrysler's problems getting worse. Actually it's Fiat that has a
problem, if this deal does go through. I don't see how they think they
can make any money out of this deal. Certainly free market sales of
motor vehicles is not going to do it. That leaves the U.S. government
as the only possible source of a return on Fiat's "investment."
>
> > *To get it, this whole
> > rancid deal has got to get past a bankruptcy magistrate judge, a
> > District Court judge, a Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
> > Funny how these institutions tend to follow the law as it is written
> > in the law books, and not according to the politically driven whims of
> > the banana republic dictator currently occupying the White House.
>
> The government's courts don't follow the law either, they care not for
> it. To many judges they are the law.

That's a bizarre theory of jurisprudence. How do these judges decide
cases, with coin tosses? If so, how can it be that the coin toss turns
out the same as this case works its way through as many as three
levels of appeal?

I think, Brett, that the correct answer is that you are an ignorant
windbag. But I would never say so in public.

Even without that, in court cases
> the judges demand that the juries apply the law as the judges say to
> apply it. The jury has complete power to decide the law as well. That's
> the point of the jury system, a check on the government from making bad
> laws against the will of the people. The juries (of the people) simply
> refuse to convict people or apply bad laws.

Courts of appeal -- and in bankruptcy cases the District Court sits as
a court of appeal -- never use juries.

The bankruptcy courts use juries only in limited circumstances, e.g.,
in a claim arising under state contract law which calls for jury trial
of disputed issues of fact.

Unless you have in mind a particular legal issue which is going to be
submitted to a jury in this Chrysler Chapter 11 proceeding, I don't
understand why you brought up juries -- other than the reason that
you are an ignorant windbag. But "the jury is out" on that one --
hee hee -- so we'll let it go.

180 Out

My guess, in 18 months there will be no Chrysler. Hope I'm wrong....

Al

wrote in news:71ed46fd-c5d0-4870-a2a3-
:

> On May 5, 9:33*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2009-05-05, > wrote:
>>
>> > Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet.
>>
>> Fiat hasn't ruined performance brands it owns/controls such as
Ferrari
>> so I don't see what a problem Fiat ownership would be.
>
> You're right. A European luxury car maker takes over Chrysler: what
> could possibly go wrong?
>
> Anyway, I didn't say one way or the other whether Fiat ownership could
> be a problem. It's difficult -- no, impossible -- to imagine
> Chrysler's problems getting worse. Actually it's Fiat that has a
> problem, if this deal does go through. I don't see how they think they
> can make any money out of this deal. Certainly free market sales of
> motor vehicles is not going to do it. That leaves the U.S. government
> as the only possible source of a return on Fiat's "investment."

Chrysler is Fiat's ticket into the U.S. market. Takes them into a whole
'nother league. A car like the 500 would put Chrysler ahead of both
Ford and GM instantly. After the dust settles from the economy, they'd
be positioned decently.