Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed

From : comments4u

Q: with congressional hearings starting tuesday everyone wonders what pitch the detroit automakers will use to try to convince congress - and more importantly the public - that spending taxpayer money will rescue them. bits and pieces have leaked and its time to start evaluating them. rick wagoner gms ceo has spent most of his career in finance related functions after having started as an analyst in gms treasurers office. he will offer expert testimony on gms finances. there should be more digits in these numbers is one of his planned lines. but with a known lack of product experience it is expected that congress will instead try to grill him mercilessly on car features and manufacturing issues. during a crash course over the weekend wagoner learned to recite all gms current brand names in less than 60 seconds his tendency to include oldsmobile was a particular stumbling block. fords alan mulally is probably the best prepared of the three. with a engineering background at boeing he is likely to be able to impress congress that he knows how to lead a manufacturing company. yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as saying his personal lexus was the best car in the world. chrysler ceo robert nardelli may have the least to say. his opening statement based on his experience at the home depot is reported to be simply we can do it you can help. .

Replies:

From : count floyd

the new cvt transmissions such as found on the caliber do not get better mpg. the cvt effectively is infinite gears yet the calibers mpg is subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in its class. my guess is that the power loss through the cvt is more than any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved. i have a caliber with the 2.0/cvt and get 27-30 around town and 33-34 on the highway much better than our two pt cruisers got! -- .

From : miles

hls wrote lloyd is not wrong imo. but we are dealing with some mighty broad assumptions the only way more gears can give better mpg is in conditions where speed varies constantly up and down such as city driving. the new cvt transmissions such as found on the caliber do not get better mpg. the cvt effectively is infinite gears yet the calibers mpg is subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in its class. my guess is that the power loss through the cvt is more than any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved. .

From : hls

on dec 5 1055 pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. yes you could have 100 speeds and not improve the economy but the transmission ratios are vitally important in the way a car performs and in the economy. you need to stay within the most economical band of rpm for the engine and a properly designed transmission helps you do this. it helps you optimize the mileage you can get from a particular engine/ tranny setup if done properly. traditional 3 or 4 speed trannies manual were still 11 in high gear. it isnt that way any more. you can have one or more overdrive gears. a shitteaux 3 speed automatic can give you good mileage or terrible mileage if not matched to the characteristics of the engine. lloyd is not wrong imo. but we are dealing with some mighty broad assumptions .

From : mike marlow

on tue 9 dec 2008 164625 -0600 hls cast forth these pearls of wisdom... on dec 5 1055 pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. yes you could have 100 speeds and not improve the economy but the transmission ratios are vitally important in the way a car performs and in the economy. you need to stay within the most economical band of rpm for the engine and a properly designed transmission helps you do this. it helps you optimize the mileage you can get from a particular engine/ tranny setup if done properly. traditional 3 or 4 speed trannies manual were still 11 in high gear. it isnt that way any more. you can have one or more overdrive gears. a shitteaux 3 speed automatic can give you good mileage or terrible mileage if not matched to the characteristics of the engine. lloyd is not wrong imo. but we are dealing with some mighty broad assumptions not really. the assumptions were as stated by lloyd... that the 3sp/od was inferior and did not provide the economy of a 6 speed. while what you state above is true its somewhat irrelevant since the gm trannies do a very good job of keep the car within its power band. i agree that one could potentially argue that they could re-gear first for more off the line power in some models 4 cyls but even at that its not horrible its just not snappy. the whole point of this discussion was not about sitteaux 3 speed automatics - it was about gms tranny. -- -mike- mmarlowremove@alltel.net .

From : mike marlow

on tue 9 dec 2008 073413 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. please go study up and then come back and post. youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk about things you dont understand at all. do you understand why you add gears to a transmission i do lloyd and that is what makes your comments so ludicrous. you clearly do not. the number of gears is totally irrelevant. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. i assure you they do. read some road tests. please do. you will be surprised at what you find is really being reported - as opposed to what you wish were being reported. i have. so its your turn put up or shut up. cite some road tests which show a 3-speed/od gm car getting better mileage than a comparable model with a 6-speed. take it another step lloyd. take your basic gm 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder car. take a current malibu or impala. compare the real world mileage of these cars to your car of choice. take a 10 year old malibu or lesabre. compare those to your dream car of today. dont expect to be taken seriously when you give me anecdotes and i provide objective data from professionals. lloyd - this is not my first encounter with you in a usenet group. i could not care one bit less whether you take me seriously or not. the word objective is not something you should ever use in a sentence that associates it with you. -- -mike- mmarlowremove@alltel.net .

From : 80 knight nospam

on dec 8 1128 pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... most. does your library carry car & driver consumer reports dont expect to be taken seriously when you give me anecdotes and i provide objective data from professionals. if car & driver and consumer reports are your source for objective data from professionals then you are fucked. .

From : brent

on 2008-12-09 lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote on dec 9 827am brent tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com wrote on 2008-12-09 mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. please go study up and then come back and post. youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk about things you dont understand at all. its lloyd. you expect him to understand that the number of speeds is irrelevant to the ratios so brent guess you still think the 2-speed powerglide is great huh so lloyd guess you still think a rusted chevy vega is great huh* *an illustration of lloyds typical dishonest debate tactics there is no basis if fact regarding the loaded question just like ive never offered an opinion on 2-speed powerglide transmissions. anyway parker theres no reason that a 2 speed transmission couldnt have the same net gearing to the drive wheels in 2 that a 6 speed has in 6. it would not probably be an ideal car to drive but the gearing with regards to overdrive need not be any different because it has fewer speeds. you dont need to have x speeds to have overdrive. the two are not related. the reason to have more gears is to keep an engine in a specific rpm band. this is done for performance of the 0-60 kind not the mpg kind in most cases. additional gears come at weight/complexity penalty. its not a matter of engineers in the past being unable to design one. as materials improve that penalty is lessened. the idea of overdrive for fuel economy is about highway study-state type driving. one could get around town on 3 speeds just fine but out on the highway have the same od gear for fourth as a six speed. here are some ford transmission gear ratios http//www.hardcore50.com/technicalarticles/gearratios.htm notice how there is no relationship between the ratio of the last gear and the number of gears in a transmission. take particular note of the two 6 speed manuals. one is set up for first gear acceleration the other is set up for low rpm highway crusing. throw on top of this that the final drive the ratio of the diff plays a significant role in what the effective gear ratio is. .

From : lloyd

on dec 9 827=a0am brent tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com wrote on 2008-12-09 mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls = of wisdom... a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. =a0please go study up and then co= me back and post. =a0youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying t= o talk about things you dont understand at all. its lloyd. you expect him to understand that the number of speeds is irrelevant to the ratios so brent guess you still think the 2-speed powerglide is great huh .

From : lloyd

on dec 8 1128=a0pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... on dec 5 1055=a0pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls= of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you =a0it isnt about the number of speeds. =a0it= s about the torque curve and the gear ratio. =a0you can have 100 speeds and no= t achieve any better mileage. =a0 a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. =a0please go study up and then come back and post. =a0youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to = talk about things you dont understand at all. do you understand why you add gears to a transmission in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. =a0 i assure you they do. =a0read some road tests. please do. =a0you will be surprised at what you find is really being repo= rted - as opposed to what you wish were being reported. i have. so its your turn put up or shut up. cite some road tests which show a 3-speed/od gm car getting better mileage than a comparable model with a 6-speed. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. now youre being ignorant. no - unlike you i have actually driven cars like the ones being discusse= d. if you think any passenger car revs to 10000 you not only have not driven any cars you havent not even imagined driving any cars. the problem with your statement is that there is no all things being equal when you are talking about engines that make torque and those t= hat do not. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others it isnt a matter of cheapening out. =a0certain engines will require m= ore gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. =a0others ha= ve a wide enough torque range that they dont require this band-aid. are you claiming the 3.3 l v6 has more torque than the 3.8 l =a0the 2.= 7 l v6 has more than the 3.5 l where in the hell does that come from =a0please take additional courses = in reading comprehension while you are studying up as previously recommended= .. you claimed only engines with lower torque require a 6-speed. chrysler puts the 6-sp with the 3.8 v6 in minivans but a 4-sp with the 3.3 l. by your own logic that means the 3.3 l must have more torque. same for the 3.5 vs 2.7 l. do you stand by your original claim if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over = 30mpg than any other brand of car =a0 for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. =a0check = out some road tests for what they get in real life. =a0no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. bull. =a0ive owned far too many gms over far too many years for some= one who does not know what hes talking about to get away with that crap. =a0s= ince my 92 park ave ultra with a super charged 3.8l i have never achieved les= s than 30+ on the highway out of a gm six cylinder. =a0that park ave was= pure luxury had more power throughout the entire driving range than any japanese car and it got 32 on the highway 24 around town. so =a0im talking about tests with the same cars drivers and conditions. =a0youre giving me anecdotes. no - i give you real world experiences that are quoted every day by peopl= e who actually drive cars and dont just read magazines. and i give you experiences by professionals who compare cars under the same conditions who are objective. again you give me anecdotes. =a0so - you tell me how many toyotas and hondas get the same or better mileage than those gm vehicles with documented evidence of mileage with those same standards o= f luxury comfort power etc. =a0 most. does your library carry car & driver consumer reports =a0 please learn something more than what you read on the internet if you= re going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first ha= nd experience and know what they are talking about. please learn what actual tests are what same conditions means. please show those tests those same conditions etc. =a0please demonstrat= e the various gm models that were tested against the various other manufacturers. =a0you cant and youre proving yourself to be nothing mor= e than a mouthpiece for your favorite magazine. perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. =a0i = bet youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. =a0geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased a= s bush on iraq. you make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. =a0i have no use=

From : brent

on 2008-12-09 mike marlow mmarlowremove@alltel.net wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. please go study up and then come back and post. youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk about things you dont understand at all. its lloyd. you expect him to understand that the number of speeds is irrelevant to the ratios .

From : bill putney

mike marlow wrote on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... on dec 5 1055 pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. please go study up and then come back and post. youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk about things you dont understand at all. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. i assure you they do. read some road tests. please do. you will be surprised at what you find is really being reported - as opposed to what you wish were being reported. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. now youre being ignorant. no - unlike you i have actually driven cars like the ones being discussed. the problem with your statement is that there is no all things being equal when you are talking about engines that make torque and those that do not. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others it isnt a matter of cheapening out. certain engines will require more gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. others have a wide enough torque range that they dont require this band-aid. are you claiming the 3.3 l v6 has more torque than the 3.8 l the 2.7 l v6 has more than the 3.5 l where in the hell does that come from please take additional courses in reading comprehension while you are studying up as previously recommended. if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. check out some road tests for what they get in real life. no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. bull. ive owned far too many gms over far too many years for someone who does not know what hes talking about to get away with that crap. since my 92 park ave ultra with a super charged 3.8l i have never achieved less than 30+ on the highway out of a gm six cylinder. that park ave was pure luxury had more power throughout the entire driving range than any japanese car and it got 32 on the highway 24 around town. so im talking about tests with the same cars drivers and conditions. youre giving me anecdotes. no - i give you real world experiences that are quoted every day by people who actually drive cars and dont just read magazines. so - you tell me how many toyotas and hondas get the same or better mileage than those gm vehicles with documented evidence of mileage with those same standards of luxury comfort power etc. please learn something more than what you read on the internet if youre going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first hand experience and know what they are talking about. please learn what actual tests are what same conditions means. please show those tests those same conditions etc. please demonstrate the various gm models that were tested against the various other manufacturers. you cant and youre proving yourself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for your favorite magazine. perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. i bet youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased as bush on iraq. you make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. i have no use for chrysler products at all. i hate them. that said - those interiors are no different than what is typically found in japanese cars. then youve either never set in both or youre blind. au contraire on both points. you just want too much to believe that the japanese cars are somehow so much nicer. fine - believe what you wish but dont expect a rebuttal when you say stupid things here. to certain people the facts dont matter - whats important is that the narrative has to be right think duke rape case. the facts could agree with the conclusion or could contradict the conclusion - doesnt matter. whats important is the narrative that leads to the desired conclusion. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : lloyd

on dec 5 1042=a0am steve n...@spam.thanks wrote c. e. white wrote toyotas single must impressive acheievement is in the area of pr. =a0they have manage to convince millions of people that second rate crap is wonderful. ed wonderfully stated. yes everybody buying toyota is duped. all the testers at motor trend car & driver autoweek etc. are duped. only you know chrysler is superior to everything else. do you realize how foolish you are .

From : nate nagel

mike marlow wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. this. i can tool around all day in my 55 stude and only use second and fourth. if youve got bags of torque all the way from off idle to 5k you dont need gears. what *will* get you better mileage is gear *spread* - id probably get better mileage on the highway if i swapped the 4-speed for a 3/od the three speeds would nicely take the place of the four that i have and the od would drop my revs at cruise. if a 5-speed and a 6-speed have the same gear spread and the engine is flexible and torquey the 6-speed just adds weight and complexity for no real benefit. nate -- replace roosters with cox to reply. http//members.cox.net/njnagel .

From : mike marlow

on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. the problem with your statement is that there is no all things being equal when you are talking about engines that make torque and those that do not. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others it isnt a matter of cheapening out. certain engines will require more gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. others have a wide enough torque range that they dont require this band-aid. if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. check out some road tests for what they get in real life. no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. bull. ive owned far too many gms over far too many years for someone who does not know what hes talking about to get away with that crap. since my 92 park ave ultra with a super charged 3.8l i have never achieved less than 30+ on the highway out of a gm six cylinder. that park ave was pure luxury had more power throughout the entire driving range than any japanese car and it got 32 on the highway 24 around town. please learn something more than what you read on the internet if youre going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first hand experience and know what they are talking about. perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. i bet youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased as bush on iraq. you make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. i have no use for chrysler products at all. i hate them. that said - those interiors are no different than what is typically found in japanese cars. that was the only point i made in response to your baseless claim. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability of torque throughout the rpm range. bs. chrysler engines make less torque than most competitors. ill give you this one on a technicality. i was referencing torque-ier american engines in general and your preceeding comment did specifically reference chrysler. -- -mike- mmarlowremove@alltel.net .

From : lloyd

on dec 5 1055=a0pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you =a0it isnt about the number of speeds. =a0its = about the torque curve and the gear ratio. =a0you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. =a0 a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. =a0 i assure you they do. read some road tests. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. now youre being ignorant. the problem with your statement is that there is no all things being equal when you are talking about engines that make torque and those that do not. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others it isnt a matter of cheapening out. =a0certain engines will require more gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. =a0others have = a wide enough torque range that they dont require this band-aid. are you claiming the 3.3 l v6 has more torque than the 3.8 l the 2.7 l v6 has more than the 3.5 l if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30= mpg than any other brand of car =a0 for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. =a0check ou= t some road tests for what they get in real life. =a0no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. bull. =a0ive owned far too many gms over far too many years for someone= who does not know what hes talking about to get away with that crap. =a0sinc= e my 92 park ave ultra with a super charged 3.8l i have never achieved less than 30+ on the highway out of a gm six cylinder. =a0that park ave was pu= re luxury had more power throughout the entire driving range than any japanese car and it got 32 on the highway 24 around town. so im talking about tests with the same cars drivers and conditions. youre giving me anecdotes. =a0 please learn something more than what you read on the internet if youre going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first hand experience and know what they are talking about. please learn what actual tests are what same conditions means. perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. =a0i be= t youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. =a0geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased as bush on iraq. you make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. =a0i have no use fo= r chrysler products at all. =a0i hate them. =a0that said - those interiors = are no different than what is typically found in japanese cars. then youve either never set in both or youre blind. =a0that was the only point i made in response to your baseless claim. =a0 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. =a0or as powerful. =a0come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp f= rom a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability = of torque throughout the rpm range. =a0 bs. =a0chrysler engines make less torque than most competitors. ill give you this one on a technicality. =a0i was referencing torque-ier american engines in general and your preceeding comment did specifically reference chrysler. =a0 -- -mike- mmarlowrem...@alltel.net .

From : mike marlow

on mon 8 dec 2008 083319 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... on dec 5 1055pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on fri 5 dec 2008 112124 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. you dont get it do you it isnt about the number of speeds. its about the torque curve and the gear ratio. you can have 100 speeds and not achieve any better mileage. a 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher gearing so better fuel economy. good lord - you really do not get it. please go study up and then come back and post. youre making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk about things you dont understand at all. in fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better mileage than a comparable gm car with a 3 speed with od. i assure you they do. read some road tests. please do. you will be surprised at what you find is really being reported - as opposed to what you wish were being reported. nor are they quieter while they are reving at 10000 rpms. now youre being ignorant. no - unlike you i have actually driven cars like the ones being discussed. the problem with your statement is that there is no all things being equal when you are talking about engines that make torque and those that do not. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others it isnt a matter of cheapening out. certain engines will require more gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. others have a wide enough torque range that they dont require this band-aid. are you claiming the 3.3 l v6 has more torque than the 3.8 l the 2.7 l v6 has more than the 3.5 l where in the hell does that come from please take additional courses in reading comprehension while you are studying up as previously recommended. if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. check out some road tests for what they get in real life. no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. bull. ive owned far too many gms over far too many years for someone who does not know what hes talking about to get away with that crap. since my 92 park ave ultra with a super charged 3.8l i have never achieved less than 30+ on the highway out of a gm six cylinder. that park ave was pure luxury had more power throughout the entire driving range than any japanese car and it got 32 on the highway 24 around town. so im talking about tests with the same cars drivers and conditions. youre giving me anecdotes. no - i give you real world experiences that are quoted every day by people who actually drive cars and dont just read magazines. so - you tell me how many toyotas and hondas get the same or better mileage than those gm vehicles with documented evidence of mileage with those same standards of luxury comfort power etc. please learn something more than what you read on the internet if youre going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first hand experience and know what they are talking about. please learn what actual tests are what same conditions means. please show those tests those same conditions etc. please demonstrate the various gm models that were tested against the various other manufacturers. you cant and youre proving yourself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for your favorite magazine. perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. i bet youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased as bush on iraq. you make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. i have no use for chrysler products at all. i hate them. that said - those interiors are no different than what is typically found in japanese cars. then youve either never set in both or youre blind. au contraire on both points. you just want too much to believe that the japanese cars are somehow so much nicer. fine - believe what you wish but dont expect a rebuttal when you say stupid things here. -- -mike- mmarlowremove@alltel.net .

From : brent

on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. this is how they pay the uaw workers. a vehicle will only fetch x on the market. if you pay a higher labor rate you have to cut materials and time. lesser interior materials save money. specific horsepower is a function of cost in manufacturing processes and material. using particular designs longer cuts tooling and development costs making up for high cost labor. unflexible labor also forces one to stick with present designs because the manufacturing side cant handle new processes or new automation. the uaw as a classic old-school union fights change and has an artifically high cost of labor. to think this doesnt show up in the product is nonsense. they could make all the executives work for a dollar a year and it wont fix these problems. well it might let them upgrade the dash pad in every car... maybe the carpet too but thats about it the overall problems still exist. when i worked for a supplier to visteon ford and delhpi gm gm would set up brainstorming meetings with us that lasted for days to jointly try to figure out ways to cut costs in the product we manufactured and sold them. one of the legal ground rules laid out up front by them was that any idea that resulted in a body being eliminated from the assembly process in their plant involving our part had to be automatically rejected due to gm/union agreements i do not believe ford was under the same constraint - it was something that gm uniquely had to live with due to agreements that had been made years earlier according to the way it was explained to us by our sales rep.. thats really a kiss of death. elimination of assembly steps combining parts into one part and elimination of secondary processes are some of the best ways to reduce cost with no negative impact on quality. .

From : brent

on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. .

From : bill putney

brent wrote on 2008-12-04 lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. this is how they pay the uaw workers. a vehicle will only fetch x on the market. if you pay a higher labor rate you have to cut materials and time. lesser interior materials save money. specific horsepower is a function of cost in manufacturing processes and material. using particular designs longer cuts tooling and development costs making up for high cost labor. unflexible labor also forces one to stick with present designs because the manufacturing side cant handle new processes or new automation. the uaw as a classic old-school union fights change and has an artifically high cost of labor. to think this doesnt show up in the product is nonsense. they could make all the executives work for a dollar a year and it wont fix these problems. well it might let them upgrade the dash pad in every car... maybe the carpet too but thats about it the overall problems still exist. when i worked for a supplier to visteon ford and delhpi gm gm would set up brainstorming meetings with us that lasted for days to jointly try to figure out ways to cut costs in the product we manufactured and sold them. one of the legal ground rules laid out up front by them was that any idea that resulted in a body being eliminated from the assembly process in their plant involving our part had to be automatically rejected due to gm/union agreements i do not believe ford was under the same constraint - it was something that gm uniquely had to live with due to agreements that had been made years earlier according to the way it was explained to us by our sales rep.. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

hls wrote ed you know as well as i do that the quality and durability of a lot of the chrysler models is worse than terrible. actually i disagree completely. i have yet to have a chrysler product let me down or expire with less than 200000 miles. actually ive never had one expire even over 200k miles ive sold or traded with it still running. admittedly ive avoided buying ones that i thought were not up to snuff- like a neon or anything that had a mitsubishi engine. theres no other brand that id buy used with over 100k miles on the clock like i just did my 99 cherokee which is proving to be yet another indestructible vehicle. if they go out of business ill keep finding used ones to buy as long as i can. then ford. then german. .

From : caesar romano

on thu 4 dec 2008 205538 +0000 utc brent tetraethylleadremovethis@yahoo.com wrote re re detroit rescue plans revealed the uaw as a classic old-school union fights change and has an artifically high cost of labor. to think this doesnt show up in the product is nonsense. they could make all the executives work for a dollar a year and it wont fix these problems. well it might let them upgrade the dash pad in every car... maybe the carpet too but thats about it the overall problems still exist. well said. .

From : bill putney

lloyd wrote on dec 3 148 pm david e. powell davidpowell3...@msn.com wrote on dec 2 125 am josh s j...@clean.spam wrote c. e. white cewhi...@removemindspring.com wrote comments4u comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote in yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as saying his personal lexus was the best car in the world. doesnt everyone think the car they are driving is the best car in the world for them all things considered if there were no constraints i am sure my current car would not be the best car for me but given my real world constraints i bought the car because it was the best one that met my requirements/constraints/desires at that time. i doubt mulally any more knew whether a lexus was the best car in the world or not than i do but he certainly could have thought it was the best car for him as far as he knew. i assume he knows better now when he was running boeing i cant imagine him riding around in a lexus and saying well it is a good car but i was a dope for spending so much for a pimped out toyota. what high power over paid ceo would ever admit he bought anything but the best - especially when it was a product produced in a foreign country seeing the current lexus e350 ads amuses me. it looks and is so similar to my grey 300m. under the lexus only gains on more recent vvt 6 sp auto and more air bags. toyota copies very well as do a few other foreign cars. perhaps the smart tasteful car stylists that seem to be absent from recent chrysler car body designs were hired by this competition. the biggest example is cab forward stuff which is the industry standard now! which is why chrysler went away from it. if you want to distinguish yourself and everybody else is copying your design you need a new design. i wish the people who say bad stuff about american cars would actually go and look some. the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : hls

----- original message ----- from lloyd lparker@emory.edu groups sent thursday december 04 2008 339 pm subject re detroit rescue plans revealed 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. lets look at your comparions first 2009 nissan maxima engine horsepower 290-hp @ 6400 rpm engine torque 261 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $30160 2009 dodge charger v6 sxt horsepower 250-hp @ 6400 rpm torque 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3800 rpm msrp $24285 ill bet you at lower engine rpms the chrysler v6 actually has as much maybe more torque than the nissan v6. just how often do you drive around with the engine screaming along at 6400 rpm for people who drive sanely the hp at 6400 rpm is irrelevant. the torque available in the 1500 to 300 rpm range has a lot more to do with how the vehicle feels. i have a nissan frontier with the 4l version of the nissan v6. it is one fast truck but it drives like crap in traffic. you have two choices at a stop light - burn rubber or creep away. the mid range torque is pathetic. comapred to my old f150 the frontier is a pain to drive in traffic and a horror on mud or grass. i constantly spin the rear tires when on my farm unless i put it in 4wd. you cant ease into anything. it is like a switch - 4000 rpm and a rocket 2000 rpm and it wont move. i call it idiot engineering driven by idiots in marketing. and dont forget just a coupel of years back all the japanese manufacturers were dinged for lying about the horsepower numbers. second honda accord ex coupe horsepower 190-hp @ 7000 rpm torque 162 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $23555 dodge avenger sxt horsepower 173-hp @ 6000 rpm torque 166 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $20515 the chrysler engine has more torque where it counts. ill bet it is a lot easier to maintain speed in traffic with the dodge than with the accord. and the avenger is $3k less expensive besides. i used always rag on chevrolet for selling engines that devloped big horsepower numbers at ridiculouly high rpms but the japanese are well beyond anything as silly as gm used to do. if you want to ride around with the engine buzzing at 4k+ rpms all the time hondas are great. if you like nice undramatic smooth efficient acceleration they are horrid. ed ed you know as well as i do that the quality and durability of a lot of the chrysler models is worse than terrible. i think they are on the road to change but i would rather have unprotected sex with an infected woman than buy a chrysler at this point. .

From : c e white

----- original message ----- from lloyd lparker@emory.edu groups sent thursday december 04 2008 339 pm subject re detroit rescue plans revealed 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. lets look at your comparions first 2009 nissan maxima engine horsepower 290-hp @ 6400 rpm engine torque 261 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $30160 2009 dodge charger v6 sxt horsepower 250-hp @ 6400 rpm torque 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3800 rpm msrp $24285 ill bet you at lower engine rpms the chrysler v6 actually has as much maybe more torque than the nissan v6. just how often do you drive around with the engine screaming along at 6400 rpm for people who drive sanely the hp at 6400 rpm is irrelevant. the torque available in the 1500 to 300 rpm range has a lot more to do with how the vehicle feels. i have a nissan frontier with the 4l version of the nissan v6. it is one fast truck but it drives like crap in traffic. you have two choices at a stop light - burn rubber or creep away. the mid range torque is pathetic. comapred to my old f150 the frontier is a pain to drive in traffic and a horror on mud or grass. i constantly spin the rear tires when on my farm unless i put it in 4wd. you cant ease into anything. it is like a switch - 4000 rpm and a rocket 2000 rpm and it wont move. i call it idiot engineering driven by idiots in marketing. and dont forget just a coupel of years back all the japanese manufacturers were dinged for lying about the horsepower numbers. second honda accord ex coupe horsepower 190-hp @ 7000 rpm torque 162 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $23555 dodge avenger sxt horsepower 173-hp @ 6000 rpm torque 166 lbs.-ft. @ 4400 rpm msrp $20515 the chrysler engine has more torque where it counts. ill bet it is a lot easier to maintain speed in traffic with the dodge than with the accord. and the avenger is $3k less expensive besides. i used always rag on chevrolet for selling engines that devloped big horsepower numbers at ridiculouly high rpms but the japanese are well beyond anything as silly as gm used to do. if you want to ride around with the engine buzzing at 4k+ rpms all the time hondas are great. if you like nice undramatic smooth efficient acceleration they are horrid. ed .

From : brent

on 2008-12-04 lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. this is how they pay the uaw workers. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. this is how they pay the uaw workers. a vehicle will only fetch x on the market. if you pay a higher labor rate you have to cut materials and time. lesser interior materials save money. specific horsepower is a function of cost in manufacturing processes and material. using particular designs longer cuts tooling and development costs making up for high cost labor. unflexible labor also forces one to stick with present designs because the manufacturing side cant handle new processes or new automation. the uaw as a classic old-school union fights change and has an artifically high cost of labor. to think this doesnt show up in the product is nonsense. they could make all the executives work for a dollar a year and it wont fix these problems. well it might let them upgrade the dash pad in every car... maybe the carpet too but thats about it the overall problems still exist. .

From : lloyd

on dec 3 148=a0pm david e. powell davidpowell3...@msn.com wrote on dec 2 125=a0am josh s j...@clean.spam wrote =a0c. e. white cewhi...@removemindspring.com wrote comments4u comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote in yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considere= d dishonest. =a0before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as say= ing his personal lexus was the best car in the world. doesnt everyone think the car they are driving is the best car in th= e world for them all things considered if there were no constraints= i am sure my current car would not be the best car for me but given my real world constraints i bought the car because it was the best one that met my requirements/constraints/desires at that time. i doub= t mulally any more knew whether a lexus was the best car in the world o= r not than i do but he certainly could have thought it was the best ca= r for him as far as he knew. i assume he knows better now when he was running boeing i cant imagine him riding around in a lexus and saying well it is a good car but i was a dope for spending so much for a pimped out toyota. what high power over paid ceo would ever admit he bought anything but the best - especially when it was a product produced in a foreign country seeing the current lexus e350 ads amuses me. it looks and is so similar to my grey 300m. under the lexus =a0only gai= ns on more recent vvt 6 sp auto and more air bags. toyota copies very well as do a few other foreign cars. perhaps the smart tasteful car stylists that seem to be absent from recent chrysler car body designs were hired by this competition. the biggest example is cab forward stuff which is the industry standard now! which is why chrysler went away from it. if you want to distinguish yourself and everybody else is copying your design you need a new design. i wish the people who say bad stuff about american cars would actually go and look some. the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. .

From : c e white

comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote in yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as saying his personal lexus was the best car in the world. doesnt everyone think the car they are driving is the best car in the world for them all things considered if there were no constraints i am sure my current car would not be the best car for me but given my real world constraints i bought the car because it was the best one that met my requirements/constraints/desires at that time. i doubt mulally any more knew whether a lexus was the best car in the world or not than i do but he certainly could have thought it was the best car for him as far as he knew. i assume he knows better now when he was running boeing i cant imagine him riding around in a lexus and saying well it is a good car but i was a dope for spending so much for a pimped out toyota. what high power over paid ceo would ever admit he bought anything but the best - especially when it was a product produced in a foreign country ed .

From : david e powell

on dec 2 125=a0am josh s j...@clean.spam wrote =a0c. e. white cewhi...@removemindspring.com wrote comments4u comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote in yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. =a0before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as sayin= g his personal lexus was the best car in the world. doesnt everyone think the car they are driving is the best car in the world for them all things considered if there were no constraints i am sure my current car would not be the best car for me but given my real world constraints i bought the car because it was the best one that met my requirements/constraints/desires at that time. i doubt mulally any more knew whether a lexus was the best car in the world or not than i do but he certainly could have thought it was the best car for him as far as he knew. i assume he knows better now when he was running boeing i cant imagine him riding around in a lexus and saying well it is a good car but i was a dope for spending so much for a pimped out toyota. what high power over paid ceo would ever admit he bought anything but the best - especially when it was a product produced in a foreign country seeing the current lexus e350 ads amuses me. it looks and is so similar to my grey 300m. under the lexus =a0only gains on more recent vvt 6 sp auto and more air bags. toyota copies very well as do a few other foreign cars. perhaps the smart tasteful car stylists that seem to be absent from recent chrysler car body designs were hired by this competition. the biggest example is cab forward stuff which is the industry standard now! i wish the people who say bad stuff about american cars would actually go and look some. .

From : josh s

c. e. white cewhite3@removemindspring.com wrote comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote in yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as saying his personal lexus was the best car in the world. doesnt everyone think the car they are driving is the best car in the world for them all things considered if there were no constraints i am sure my current car would not be the best car for me but given my real world constraints i bought the car because it was the best one that met my requirements/constraints/desires at that time. i doubt mulally any more knew whether a lexus was the best car in the world or not than i do but he certainly could have thought it was the best car for him as far as he knew. i assume he knows better now when he was running boeing i cant imagine him riding around in a lexus and saying well it is a good car but i was a dope for spending so much for a pimped out toyota. what high power over paid ceo would ever admit he bought anything but the best - especially when it was a product produced in a foreign country seeing the current lexus e350 ads amuses me. it looks and is so similar to my grey 300m. under the lexus only gains on more recent vvt 6 sp auto and more air bags. toyota copies very well as do a few other foreign cars. perhaps the smart tasteful car stylists that seem to be absent from recent chrysler car body designs were hired by this competition. .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

at nearly $1000000 one would think so but i think he said one of the best ; yet he cant speak too highly of ford products lest he be considered dishonest. before being appointed ford ceo he was quoted as saying his personal lexus was the best car in the world. .

From : some o

wrote hls wrote lloyd is not wrong imo. but we are dealing with some mighty broad assumptions the only way more gears can give better mpg is in conditions where speed varies constantly up and down such as city driving. the new cvt transmissions such as found on the caliber do not get better mpg. the cvt effectively is infinite gears yet the calibers mpg is subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in its class. my guess is that the power loss through the cvt is more than any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved. they say about a 5% advantage for the cvt in urban driving. little difference on the highway. the only comparison i can find is to a stick shift a comparison to a regular auto is needed. according to the epa figures the nissan cvt setup is significantly more efficient than chryslers; looking at the 2.4 l caliper vs the rogue. .

From : lloyd

on dec 10 830=a0am miles n...@nopers.com wrote hls wrote lloyd is not wrong imo. =a0but we are dealing with some mighty broad assumptions the only way more gears can give better mpg is in conditions where speed varies constantly up and down such as city driving. the new cvt transmissions such as found on the caliber do not get better mpg. =a0the cvt effectively is infinite gears yet the calibers mpg is subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in its class. =a0my guess is that the power loss through the cvt is more tha= n any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved. car & driver seems to agree -- they did a test last year and claimed the power needed to run the pump which moves the cvt belt/pulley took enough power than no savings was achieved. however nissan seems to disagree and by most accounts theyre the only ones to really get a cvt to work well. .

From : matthew russotto

c. e. white cewhite3@removemindspring.com wrote alright here is my suggestion.... because of public opinion it seems congress is having a hard time loaning gm and chrysler the money they need to survive. i think this has a lot more to do with public hate of arrogant labor unions than ceos flying to washington in corporate jets. maybe but i think the public hates the auto executives and the unions. on the other hand congress seems to have no problem at all shoveling money by the boats loads to banks run by greedy arrogant morons. partly because people figure that if the banks theyve put their money in fail they lose too. -- its times like these which make me glad my bank is dial-a-mattress .

From : lloyd

on dec 4 948=a0pm mike marlow mmarlowrem...@alltel.net wrote on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. =a0only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. yes according to everything from j d power to consumer reports. you hear more about toyota recalls because they step up and fix a problem rather than denying it. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. correction. =a0better stated as dependence on engines that build torque s= o that they do not need 6 speed transmissions and rev at 10000 rpms. =a0 a 6-sp will get better mileage better acceleration and be quieter all things equal. chrysler offers 6-speeds on some cars; why cheapen out on the others if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car =a0 for one thing theyre designed to do well on the epa test. check out some road tests for what they get in real life. no gm non-hybrid model comes close to the corollas mileage for example. if youre going to rag on a company at least come up with something fresh that has just a hint of truth to it. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. =a0and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. i dont see those interiors as so different from the competition. =a0 perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with chrysler. i bet youd claim a caliber is higher quality inside than a mercedes s- class. geez at least have the honesty to admit youre as biased as bush on iraq. i dont think they are anywhere as nice as they used to be but they fit in with everyone else these days. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. =a0or as powerful. =a0come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp fro= m a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability of torque throughout the rpm range. =a0 bs. chrysler engines make less torque than most competitors. why do those cars you mention need 6 speed transmission and downshift for any knoll they encounter -- -mike- mmarlowrem...@alltel.net .

From : bill putney

c. e. white wrote on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. oh you mean like when they lead the recall statistics in 2006 most total vehciels recalled and most different models recalled you need to go read some of the stuff in the nhtsa database sometime regarding toyotas. they often have the letters for toyota deying things like tundra wheels falling off as being a problem. or after a few people die it is not a toyota problem it is a toyota suppleir problem. no other company does more to cover-up lie about and deny problems than toyota. as ive said before toyotas single must impressive acheievement is in the area of pr. they have manage to convince millions of people that second rate crap is wonderful. ed and dont forget they paid jesse jacksons rainbow coalitions ransom money too. what was it - something like $700 milion -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

c. e. white wrote alright here is my suggestion.... because of public opinion it seems congress is having a hard time loaning gm and chrysler the money they need to survive. i think this has a lot more to do with public hate of arrogant labor unions than ceos flying to washington in corporate jets. on the other hand congress seems to have no problem at all shoveling money by the boats loads to banks run by greedy arrogant morons. so we lend these idiots at the banks another 68 billion a drop in the bucket on top of the 700 billion already promised... the problem is that you put enough drops into the bucket - or in this case take enough drops out and pretty soon the bucket is empty. i also heard it described as having a bathtub half full of water and you fill a bucket from one end of the tub and pour it into the other end of the tub. as the late senator everett dirksen used to say a billion here a billion there; pretty soon youre talking real money. ...on the condition that they lend gm 18 billion chrysler 7 billion and give ford a credit line of 9 billion. these have to be special low interest loans to the automakers but hey are government loans.. this way the congress wont have to appear to bail out gm directly and the banks can skim off their usual 100% profit margin and the bank ceos can continue to get billion dollar bonuses and fly around in their corporate jets. win-win. the democrats can satisfy the uaw pigs and the republican can satisfy the banking pigs. and at least most of the people will be fooled most of the time.... honestly i think this is such a good idea i am going to email it to barack and suggest that i am the only person in the us smart enough to save the banks and auto industries at the same time without having to kiss nancy pelosis ring or a**. ed i like it! -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

steve wrote mike hunter wrote that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. it one applies a polymer polish like nufinish to the lenses on occasion they will never get cloudy horseshit. cloudiness will eventually permeate the entire thickness of the lens- you cant polish it out of the middle of the plastic! its just the nature of plastics and how fast it happens depends on how good the uv blockers used by the plastic maker actually are. in fact polishing headlights too often will prematurely strip away the uv protectant layer leaving the plastic lens even more vulnerable to uv damage. darn steve - i hate to disagree with you because you just totally vindicated me in your previous post regarding some cars being worse than others in this regard but from my polishing of my concorde headlights over the years i have to say it is 98+% a surface phenomenon. first it starts with the uv coating a clear coat of some type - not sure how much alike or different it is from normal auto paint clear coat. then - yes - as you say - you will polish or sand as the case may be thru the uv coating it is a few thousandths thick and i will concede that you may need to polish thru its entire thickness initially. however once that thin layer is gone my experience says that the surface is exposed to the air and/or sunlight is whats going to oxidize. polish thru that microscopically thin surface and youre back to almost the factory water-clear appearance. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : lloyd

on dec 5 1017=a0am steve n...@spam.thanks wrote mike marlow wrote on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls = of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. =a0onl= y ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. oh puh-leeze! toyota pads the hell out of their recall statistics by dodging recalls. they offer complimentary fixes to customers who bring in their cars for other service all the time and have done a good job of hiding their endemic problems until recently. the tundra disaster revealed a lot because they finally sold to a demographic that doesnt run crying to the dealership for every problem so they couldnt stealth-fix a large enough percentage of the customer bases cars. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. correction. =a0better stated as dependence on engines that build torque= so that they do not need 6 speed transmissions and rev at 10000 rpms. = =a0if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30m= pg than any other brand of car =a0if youre going to rag on a company at= least come up with something fresh that has just a hint of truth to it. here i agree completely. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. =a0and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size an= d small cars and suvs. i dont see those interiors as so different from the competition. =a0i = dont think they are anywhere as nice as they used to be but they fit in wit= h everyone else these days. i agree again. to me its the honda interiors that feel and even smell like cheap plastic outgassing. the last 3 chrysler products ive owned even had extremely easy to service dash assemblies. the panels are solid and dont break when removed the fasteners release easily without damage and when you re-assemble them the fasteners continue to clamp the parts tightly to prevent squeaks and rattles. other than the fact that the interiors are now completely devoid of attractive chrome and metal in places that are prone to sunlight degradation like air vents i have no complaints. and those complaints i mentioned are industry-wide. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability o= f torque throughout the rpm range. =a0why do those cars you mention need = 6 speed transmission and downshift for any knoll they encounter you obviously havent argued with lloyd before. if it says it has more horespower in the glossy literature he fully believes that means it will perform better in the real world in all applications. he still thinks that jeep is better off with the 3.8 and 3.7 replacing the 4.0 because they have higher horsepower numbers despite countless people telling him how much better the 4.0 really is for offroading. no i believe it because every objective testing shows it. you otoh believe chrysler must be best because chrysler must be best. youre as stubborn as bush on iraq. .

From : lloyd

on dec 5 1008=a0am steve n...@spam.thanks wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney b...@kinez.net wrote when i worked for a supplier to visteon ford and delhpi gm gm wou= ld set up brainstorming meetings with us that lasted for days to jointly try to figure out ways to cut costs in the product we manufactured and sold them. =a0one of the legal ground rules laid out up front by them = was that any idea that resulted in a body being eliminated from the assemb= ly process in their plant involving our part had to be automatically rejected due to gm/union agreements i do not believe ford was under t= he same constraint - it was something that gm uniquely had to live with d= ue to agreements that had been made years earlier according to the way i= t was explained to us by our sales rep.. thats really a kiss of death. elimination of assembly steps combining parts into one part and elimination of secondary processes are some of the best ways to reduce cost with no negative impact on quality. and honestly it does not surprise me one bit that gm was the one with that rule. their per-car labor costs have been stupid-high compared to all the others even ford chrysler and amc since the 60s. in fact i think one huge reason that the myth of superior japanese car quality has persisted a good 15-20 years past the time when the real quality gap was gone at least for ford and chrysler is that so many people automatically equate american car with general motors. ford yes. but chrysler again youre so biased we chuckle at every post. look at some objective numbers. j d power consumer reports. dont just sit there and type chrysler is the best thing on the road. its just plain laughable. .

From : c e white

5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. and you think this unique to chrysler my sisters honda had that problem. her neighbors camry has that problem. the accord of one of my neighbors has that problem. another neighbors corolla has that problem. is there any manufacturer that hasnt built vehicles with that problem and dont tell me bmws dont do it because one car in the parking lot is 3 series bmw and it has the problem too. ed .

From : steve

c. e. white wrote toyotas single must impressive acheievement is in the area of pr. they have manage to convince millions of people that second rate crap is wonderful. ed wonderfully stated. .

From : steve

c. e. white wrote alright here is my suggestion.... because of public opinion it seems congress is having a hard time loaning gm and chrysler the money they need to survive. i think this has a lot more to do with public hate of arrogant labor unions than ceos flying to washington in corporate jets. i think there was a lot of public hate over the government bailing out the mortage companies.... profit-centers that a dont actually make or do a damn thing and b got themselves in their own mess by making stupid loans that they should have known were going to default. if congress hadnt already wasted that money id be much more inclined to help auto manufacturers. and i say that even though im one that hates the arrogant labor unions and what theyve done to the industrial capability of this country. .

From : c e white

on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. oh you mean like when they lead the recall statistics in 2006 most total vehciels recalled and most different models recalled you need to go read some of the stuff in the nhtsa database sometime regarding toyotas. they often have the letters for toyota deying things like tundra wheels falling off as being a problem. or after a few people die it is not a toyota problem it is a toyota suppleir problem. no other company does more to cover-up lie about and deny problems than toyota. as ive said before toyotas single must impressive acheievement is in the area of pr. they have manage to convince millions of people that second rate crap is wonderful. ed .

From : steve

brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote when i worked for a supplier to visteon ford and delhpi gm gm would set up brainstorming meetings with us that lasted for days to jointly try to figure out ways to cut costs in the product we manufactured and sold them. one of the legal ground rules laid out up front by them was that any idea that resulted in a body being eliminated from the assembly process in their plant involving our part had to be automatically rejected due to gm/union agreements i do not believe ford was under the same constraint - it was something that gm uniquely had to live with due to agreements that had been made years earlier according to the way it was explained to us by our sales rep.. thats really a kiss of death. elimination of assembly steps combining parts into one part and elimination of secondary processes are some of the best ways to reduce cost with no negative impact on quality. and honestly it does not surprise me one bit that gm was the one with that rule. their per-car labor costs have been stupid-high compared to all the others even ford chrysler and amc since the 60s. in fact i think one huge reason that the myth of superior japanese car quality has persisted a good 15-20 years past the time when the real quality gap was gone at least for ford and chrysler is that so many people automatically equate american car with general motors. .

From : c e white

alright here is my suggestion.... because of public opinion it seems congress is having a hard time loaning gm and chrysler the money they need to survive. i think this has a lot more to do with public hate of arrogant labor unions than ceos flying to washington in corporate jets. on the other hand congress seems to have no problem at all shoveling money by the boats loads to banks run by greedy arrogant morons. so we lend these idiots at the banks another 68 billion a drop in the bucket on top of the 700 billion already promised on the condition that they lend gm 18 billion chrysler 7 billion and give ford a credit line of 9 billion. these have to be special low interest loans to the automakers but hey are government loans.. this way the congress wont have to appear to bail out gm directly and the banks can skim off their usual 100% profit margin and the bank ceos can continue to get billion dollar bonuses and fly around in their corporate jets. win-win. the democrats can satisfy the uaw pigs and the republican can satisfy the banking pigs. and at least most of the people will be fooled most of the time.... honestly i think this is such a good idea i am going to email it to barack and suggest that i am the only person in the us smart enough to save the banks and auto industries at the same time without having to kiss nancy pelosis ring or a**. ed .

From : news

mike hunter wrote that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. right... all 3rd-generation chrysco minivan owners must be wrong. .

From : steve

mike marlow wrote on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. oh puh-leeze! toyota pads the hell out of their recall statistics by dodging recalls. they offer complimentary fixes to customers who bring in their cars for other service all the time and have done a good job of hiding their endemic problems until recently. the tundra disaster revealed a lot because they finally sold to a demographic that doesnt run crying to the dealership for every problem so they couldnt stealth-fix a large enough percentage of the customer bases cars. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. correction. better stated as dependence on engines that build torque so that they do not need 6 speed transmissions and rev at 10000 rpms. if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car if youre going to rag on a company at least come up with something fresh that has just a hint of truth to it. here i agree completely. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. i dont see those interiors as so different from the competition. i dont think they are anywhere as nice as they used to be but they fit in with everyone else these days. i agree again. to me its the honda interiors that feel and even smell like cheap plastic outgassing. the last 3 chrysler products ive owned even had extremely easy to service dash assemblies. the panels are solid and dont break when removed the fasteners release easily without damage and when you re-assemble them the fasteners continue to clamp the parts tightly to prevent squeaks and rattles. other than the fact that the interiors are now completely devoid of attractive chrome and metal in places that are prone to sunlight degradation like air vents i have no complaints. and those complaints i mentioned are industry-wide. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability of torque throughout the rpm range. why do those cars you mention need 6 speed transmission and downshift for any knoll they encounter you obviously havent argued with lloyd before. if it says it has more horespower in the glossy literature he fully believes that means it will perform better in the real world in all applications. he still thinks that jeep is better off with the 3.8 and 3.7 replacing the 4.0 because they have higher horsepower numbers despite countless people telling him how much better the 4.0 really is for offroading. .

From : steve

mike hunter wrote that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. it one applies a polymer polish like nufinish to the lenses on occasion they will never get cloudy horseshit. cloudiness will eventually permeate the entire thickness of the lens- you cant polish it out of the middle of the plastic! its just the nature of plastics and how fast it happens depends on how good the uv blockers used by the plastic maker actually are. in fact polishing headlights too often will prematurely strip away the uv protectant layer leaving the plastic lens even more vulnerable to uv damage. .

From : steve

bill putney wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. i dont see it evenly spread among the various makes brent. i have a 99 concorde my wife has a 99 buick century. they both are in the same driveway not garaged. the buicks headlights show no discoloration. that concorde gets driven a lot more than the buick but it is the same with my other concorde - a 98 that only gets used occasionally on family trips so it does not appear to be attributable to amount that it is driven. it headlight lens replacement/restoration is a constant topic of discussion on the lh car forums. i realize my observations are over a limited sampling and that you could be right but i could see some manufacturers using better uv coatings on the lenses than others for any number of reasons. my suspicion is that that is indeed the case i could be wrong. wheres stern when you really need him - what hes told me in the past is that it varies a lot by headlamp builder and how good their uv protectant really is. chrysler lh cars use wagner headlamps at least the first-gen ones did and they seem to cloud pretty badly. the pt cruiser at the other extreme uses hella headlamps and i see very few of them badly clouded. and now that my wife is a pt cruiser driver i have to say that their beam pattern and overall performance is easily on a par with the expensive e-code headlamps that ive bought for other vehicles. another complete contrast from the lh cars.... .

From : brent

on 2008-12-05 c. e. white cewhite3@removemindspring.com wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. and you think this unique to chrysler my sisters honda had that problem. her neighbors camry has that problem. the accord of one of my neighbors has that problem. another neighbors corolla has that problem. is there any manufacturer that hasnt built vehicles with that problem and dont tell me bmws dont do it because one car in the parking lot is 3 series bmw and it has the problem too. every make will have the problem until someone making engineered plastics comes up with a product that doesnt cloud over for a good price. then quickly no make will have the problem. i think it may be better to just go back to glass lenses myself. but that would kinda limit the industrial designers and they dont like being limited. .

From : bill putney

nate nagel wrote bill putney wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. i dont see it evenly spread among the various makes brent. i have a 99 concorde my wife has a 99 buick century. they both are in the same driveway not garaged. the buicks headlights show no discoloration. that concorde gets driven a lot more than the buick but it is the same with my other concorde - a 98 that only gets used occasionally on family trips so it does not appear to be attributable to amount that it is driven. it headlight lens replacement/restoration is a constant topic of discussion on the lh car forums. i realize my observations are over a limited sampling and that you could be right but i could see some manufacturers using better uv coatings on the lenses than others for any number of reasons. my suspicion is that that is indeed the case i could be wrong. i think the angle of the headlights may have a lot to do with it. a century iirc has a ships prow kind of front end while a concorde takes a lot more direct sunlight on the headlight lenses. theyll all cloud up eventually. nate what you say about their angle is certainly true. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : brentbrent

on 2008-12-05 mike hunter mikehunt2@lycos/com wrote that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. it one applies a polymer polish like nufinish to the lenses on occasion they will never get cloudy i see youve changed your from to cut through filters again. anyway while you try to be argumentive youve agreed with me. what do you think a polish does it removes the haze! duh. before i replaced the headlamps on my mustang i polished them on occasion to keep them clear. .

From : brent

on 2008-12-05 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. i dont see it evenly spread among the various makes brent. i think i covered that. i have a 99 concorde my wife has a 99 buick century. they both are in the same driveway not garaged. the buicks headlights show no discoloration. that concorde gets driven a lot more than the buick but it is the same with my other concorde - a 98 that only gets used occasionally on family trips so it does not appear to be attributable to amount that it is driven. it would only be if it was in a garage when not driven. it headlight lens replacement/restoration is a constant topic of discussion on the lh car forums. i realize my observations are over a limited sampling and that you could be right but i could see some manufacturers using better uv coatings on the lenses than others for any number of reasons. my suspicion is that that is indeed the case i could be wrong. ive see it in a lot of vehicles. usually proportional to the number of them on the road and their likelyhood of spending their life outside. .

From : brent

on 2008-12-05 nate nagel njnagel@roosters.net wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. you cant blame the mfgrs. for that. iirc it is written into the mvss that addresses headlamps that any non-sealed-beam headlamp will have a one piece lens/reflector assembly and that the lenses will be plastic. when was that done the torqueless wonder car didnt have sealed beam headlamps. first year of aero headlamps for the 626. it had glass lenses. .

From : mike marlow

on thu 4 dec 2008 123923 -0800 pst lloyd cast forth these pearls of wisdom... the problems 1. reliability for gm and chrysler is still subpar on average. only ford seems to be in a league with honda and toyota. not according to the toyota recall statistics. 2. dependence on archaic 4-speed automatics which saps power and fuel economy. correction. better stated as dependence on engines that build torque so that they do not need 6 speed transmissions and rev at 10000 rpms. if these cars sap so much power then why do more gm cars achieve over 30mpg than any other brand of car if youre going to rag on a company at least come up with something fresh that has just a hint of truth to it. 3. skimping on the details like too many hard surfaces in the interior. and just cheap interiors especially chrysler mid-size and small cars and suvs. i dont see those interiors as so different from the competition. i dont think they are anywhere as nice as they used to be but they fit in with everyone else these days. 4. engines which arent as smooth or as quiet as those from honda and toyota. or as powerful. come on chrysler nissan gets 305 hp from a 3.5 l v6; you get 250. honda gets 190 hp from a 2.4 l 4; you get 178 hp from a 2.7 l v6. they dont need to get all the horsepower because of the availability of torque throughout the rpm range. why do those cars you mention need 6 speed transmission and downshift for any knoll they encounter -- -mike- mmarlowremove@alltel.net .

From : nate nagel

please tell me where in the owners manual it directs the owner to do this. oh thats right it doesnt. please show me where they show any advantage at all over glass lenses. oh thats right glass is far superior. mike hunter talking out of his ass again... dont you ever get tired of flapping your gums nate mike hunter wrote that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. it one applies a polymer polish like nufinish to the lenses on occasion they will never get cloudy on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. -- replace roosters with cox to reply. http//members.cox.net/njnagel .

From : mike hunter mikehunt2 lycoscom

that is bs! if lenses cloud over it is a preventive maintained problem. it one applies a polymer polish like nufinish to the lenses on occasion they will never get cloudy on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. .

From : nate nagel

bill putney wrote brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. i dont see it evenly spread among the various makes brent. i have a 99 concorde my wife has a 99 buick century. they both are in the same driveway not garaged. the buicks headlights show no discoloration. that concorde gets driven a lot more than the buick but it is the same with my other concorde - a 98 that only gets used occasionally on family trips so it does not appear to be attributable to amount that it is driven. it headlight lens replacement/restoration is a constant topic of discussion on the lh car forums. i realize my observations are over a limited sampling and that you could be right but i could see some manufacturers using better uv coatings on the lenses than others for any number of reasons. my suspicion is that that is indeed the case i could be wrong. i think the angle of the headlights may have a lot to do with it. a century iirc has a ships prow kind of front end while a concorde takes a lot more direct sunlight on the headlight lenses. theyll all cloud up eventually. nate -- replace roosters with cox to reply. http//members.cox.net/njnagel .

From : bill putney

brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. i dont see it evenly spread among the various makes brent. i have a 99 concorde my wife has a 99 buick century. they both are in the same driveway not garaged. the buicks headlights show no discoloration. that concorde gets driven a lot more than the buick but it is the same with my other concorde - a 98 that only gets used occasionally on family trips so it does not appear to be attributable to amount that it is driven. it headlight lens replacement/restoration is a constant topic of discussion on the lh car forums. i realize my observations are over a limited sampling and that you could be right but i could see some manufacturers using better uv coatings on the lenses than others for any number of reasons. my suspicion is that that is indeed the case i could be wrong. -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : nate nagel

brent wrote on 2008-12-04 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote 5. usage of incorrect or inferior materials in headlight lenses that cloud over on upper mid-line vehicles - like the lh cars. while some models see it sooner than others thats pretty much everyones cars with plastic lenses. its a function of the plastics best suited for the job. the uv/hard coat quality varies but ultimately all the plastic lenses will cloud if the car is outside in the sun and driven or the headlamps are used. even mercedes plastic headlamps will cloud over. the only way to avoid it at present that i know of is to use glass. you cant blame the mfgrs. for that. iirc it is written into the mvss that addresses headlamps that any non-sealed-beam headlamp will have a one piece lens/reflector assembly and that the lenses will be plastic. for example the vw corrado uses a housing with a replaceable glass lens in germany but the us-model ones got dangerously inferior one piece plastic units. thank you ebay deutschland nate -- replace roosters with cox to reply. http//members.cox.net/njnagel .