Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

From : comments4u

Q: mercedes still may profit from chrysler while the general understanding is that mercedes is finished with chrysler in fact mercedes may still benefit from their so far ill fated takeover. unrecognized by most is that mercedes made chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars and one complete vehicle chrysler will continue to assemble from mercedes supplied kits the sprinter. of course mercedes must be cautious to provide these parts at competitive prices lest chrysler continue to lose money something that may be more difficult with the fall of the dollar. also often unrecognized is that mercedes still owns 19.1% of chrysler so if chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable mercedes remaining stake might be sold for real money. this would be in contrast to the cerberus deal where mercedes claimed it received money for chrysler but in actuality paid cerberus to take 79.9% of chrysler. the year end mercedes conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. while mercedes spokesman heinreich tungensheek expressed disappointment over chrysler discontinuing the reskinned slk it sold as the crossfire he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of chrysler was an astute business move. the implication of the question was that the only reason mercedes still had a stake is chrysler is because it couldnt afford to give cerberus any more money to take the remainder. however the mystery of the pronunciation of daimlerchrysler was finally resolved. to american eyes it looked like it should have been pronounced dame lur cry slur. yet ads during mercedes ownership consistently said dime lur cry slur. it was pronounced dime lur said mr. tungensheek. the chrysler was silent. .

Replies:

From : tbone

wrote also often unrecognized is that mercedes still owns 19.1% of chrysler so if chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable mercedes remaining stake might be sold for real money. this would be in contrast to the cerberus deal where mercedes claimed it received money for chrysler but in actuality paid cerberus to take 79.9% of chrysler. the year end mercedes conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. while mercedes spokesman heinreich tungensheek expressed disappointment over chrysler discontinuing the reskinned slk it sold as the crossfire he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of chrysler was an astute business move. the implication of the question was that the only reason mercedes still had a stake is chrysler is because it couldnt afford to give cerberus any more money to take the remainder. they should have paid me to assume ownership of chrysler... i wouldnt mind having my own car company. but at least when they paid cerbus to take it they have the possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. if they paid you to take it...well one can only imagine. heaven forbid us car company be product-centric instead of make crap and then use slick marketing to sell it. well we all know that doesnt work. just look at the shape toyota and honda are in for trying such silly ideas. you should be ashamed of yourself ;- -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : brent p

also often unrecognized is that mercedes still owns 19.1% of chrysler so if chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable mercedes remaining stake might be sold for real money. this would be in contrast to the cerberus deal where mercedes claimed it received money for chrysler but in actuality paid cerberus to take 79.9% of chrysler. the year end mercedes conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. while mercedes spokesman heinreich tungensheek expressed disappointment over chrysler discontinuing the reskinned slk it sold as the crossfire he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of chrysler was an astute business move. the implication of the question was that the only reason mercedes still had a stake is chrysler is because it couldnt afford to give cerberus any more money to take the remainder. they should have paid me to assume ownership of chrysler... i wouldnt mind having my own car company. .

From : c e white

wrote also often unrecognized is that mercedes still owns 19.1% of chrysler so if chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable mercedes remaining stake might be sold for real money. this would be in contrast to the cerberus deal where mercedes claimed it received money for chrysler but in actuality paid cerberus to take 79.9% of chrysler. the year end mercedes conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. while mercedes spokesman heinreich tungensheek expressed disappointment over chrysler discontinuing the reskinned slk it sold as the crossfire he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of chrysler was an astute business move. the implication of the question was that the only reason mercedes still had a stake is chrysler is because it couldnt afford to give cerberus any more money to take the remainder. they should have paid me to assume ownership of chrysler... i wouldnt mind having my own car company. but at least when they paid cerbus to take it they have the possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. if they paid you to take it...well one can only imagine. ed .

From : brent p

wrote also often unrecognized is that mercedes still owns 19.1% of chrysler so if chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable mercedes remaining stake might be sold for real money. this would be in contrast to the cerberus deal where mercedes claimed it received money for chrysler but in actuality paid cerberus to take 79.9% of chrysler. the year end mercedes conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. while mercedes spokesman heinreich tungensheek expressed disappointment over chrysler discontinuing the reskinned slk it sold as the crossfire he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of chrysler was an astute business move. the implication of the question was that the only reason mercedes still had a stake is chrysler is because it couldnt afford to give cerberus any more money to take the remainder. they should have paid me to assume ownership of chrysler... i wouldnt mind having my own car company. but at least when they paid cerbus to take it they have the possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. if they paid you to take it...well one can only imagine. heaven forbid us car company be product-centric instead of make crap and then use slick marketing to sell it. .

From : steve

comments4u wrote mercedes still may profit from chrysler while the general understanding is that mercedes is finished with chrysler in fact mercedes may still benefit from their so far ill fated takeover. unrecognized by most is that mercedes made chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars patently false. the lx transmission the one based on a benz design but revised and simplified is manufactured at the chrysler transmission plant in kokomo. the suspension parts likewise are not truly interchangeable with benz parts and are made by chrysler. the break was cleaner than you make it out to be. the mercedes components were all revised and are built in chrysler plants by chrysler. in the future chrysler may well buy small common-rail diesel engines from mercedes but that is functionally no different than buying the big 24-valve crd from cummins. like cummins caterpillar perkins detroit diesel scania and others daimler-benz sells diesel engines to many many oems. and one complete vehicle chrysler will continue to assemble from mercedes supplied kits the sprinter. for now. i bet the sprinter will get tossed from the dodge lineup and only benz and freightliner will badge it in the future. .

From : mike simmons

comments4u wrote mercedes still may profit from chrysler while the general understanding is that mercedes is finished with chrysler in fact mercedes may still benefit from their so far ill fated takeover. unrecognized by most is that mercedes made chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars patently false. the lx transmission the one based on a benz design but revised and simplified is manufactured at the chrysler transmission plant in kokomo. the suspension parts likewise are not truly interchangeable with benz parts and are made by chrysler. the break was cleaner than you make it out to be. the mercedes components were all revised and are built in chrysler plants by chrysler. in the future chrysler may well buy small common-rail diesel engines from mercedes but that is functionally no different than buying the big 24-valve crd from cummins. like cummins caterpillar perkins detroit diesel scania and others daimler-benz sells diesel engines to many many oems. and one complete vehicle chrysler will continue to assemble from mercedes supplied kits the sprinter. for now. i bet the sprinter will get tossed from the dodge lineup and only benz and freightliner will badge it in the future. if chrysler was smart they would develop their own sprinter equivalent. it has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the rv industry for class b and c chassis. the order backlog for the sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. mike .

From : christopher d thompson

ill check the hoses. where is the blend door located inside the hvac box which is behind the dash. its not an easy job to get to it. unfortunately it sounds like youre down to that as the only other possibility if youre really sure that it used to blow hotter than it is now. . 222 341513 e521$477d35e6$45286556$19322@alltel.net on thu 03 jan 2008 131415 -0600 mike simmons wrote comments4u wrote mercedes still may profit from chrysler while the general understanding is that mercedes is finished with chrysler in fact mercedes may still benefit from their so far ill fated takeover. unrecognized by most is that mercedes made chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars patently false. the lx transmission the one based on a benz design but revised and simplified is manufactured at the chrysler transmission plant in kokomo. the suspension parts likewise are not truly interchangeable with benz parts and are made by chrysler. the break was cleaner than you make it out to be. the mercedes components were all revised and are built in chrysler plants by chrysler. in the future chrysler may well buy small common-rail diesel engines from mercedes but that is functionally no different than buying the big 24-valve crd from cummins. like cummins caterpillar perkins detroit diesel scania and others daimler-benz sells diesel engines to many many oems. and one complete vehicle chrysler will continue to assemble from mercedes supplied kits the sprinter. for now. i bet the sprinter will get tossed from the dodge lineup and only benz and freightliner will badge it in the future. if chrysler was smart they would develop their own sprinter equivalent. it has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the rv industry for class b and c chassis. the order backlog for the sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. mike i have seen several other companies including a/c installers and information technology consulting companies using them as well mike. it seems the ideal platform for any one wanting something comprable or even larger than the old b van was. -- chris .

From : mopar man

steve wrote mercedes still may profit from chrysler unrecognized by most is that mercedes made chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars patently false. the lx transmission the one based on a benz design but revised and simplified is manufactured at the chrysler transmission plant in kokomo. the suspension parts likewise are not truly interchangeable with benz parts and are made by chrysler. what you guys are forgetting is that even if a mercedes part is made in a chrysler plant mercedes will still be getting some sort of royaly or license fee from chrysler. and ive posted the window-sheet monroney on a 300c showing that the transmission came from germany not all 300s have their transmission coming from germany but some do perhaps it depends on the model or if awd. http//www.unioncjd.com/detail-2008-chrysler-300-c-2401517.html and also based on the window sheet for a 300 you will note that the car is listed at only 74% domestic parts content. that is actually 1% short of what the us govt considers as the threshold for a vehicle to be called domestically manufactured. im reposting the following. pay attention the lx cars employ various parts from mercedes e-class such as the 5-speed automatic gearbox the rear differential esp system the double-wishbones front and 5-link rear suspensions. http//www.autozine.org/html/chrysler/300.html the lx platform is chryslers new full-size rear wheel drive automobile platform for the mid part of the 2000s. the lx was developed in america using components borrowed from the mercedes-benz w220 s-class control arm front suspension mercedes-benz w210 e-class the 5-link rear suspension the w5a580k 5-speed automatic the rear differential and the esp system. http//www.answers.com/topic/chrysler-lx-platform ----------- in 2005 the 3.5 was coupled to chryslers own four-speed automatic on rear-drive models and to the mercedes five-speed automatic on all-wheel-drive models. though chrysler had already chosen rear wheel drive before the merger hooking up with mercedes allowed some say forced the use of existing technologies including a low-end version of the mercedes e-class automatic transmission the a580 electronic automatic and versions of mercedes stability control steering front suspensions electronics rear suspensions and seats. it is hard to tell how much - if any - this has saved or cost in development since daimlerchrysler worked hard to justify the takeover of chrysler corporation in the face of stockholder lawsuits and chrysler reportedly was paying steep royalties for their use of these components some of which were provided by outside suppliers in any case the lx cars will use the mercedes e class traction control electronic stability systems axles wire harnesses automatic transmissions downgraded to five speeds from six so chrysler wont go into mercedes turf - even as gm and ford create a new six-speed automatic steering columns and other major suspension components. 20% of the magnums components are shared with mercedes according to wolfgang bernhard 40% of the crossfire is mercedes so these figures are to be taken lightly. http//www.allpar.com/cars/lx/ .

From : mopar man

weelliott@gmail.com wrote and also based on the window sheet for a 300 you will note that the car is listed at only 74% domestic parts content. that is actually 1% short of what the us govt considers as the threshold for a vehicle to be called domestically manufactured. even though the content is only 74% american that doesnt necessarily mean that the balance is german. i know that a lot of american car parts are made in canada. youre slightly confused. the 74% domestic content means us - canada - mexico. the 26% foreign content is stuff that is made from outside north america so there is plenty of stuff that can come from germany. .

From : c e white

if chrysler was smart they would develop their own sprinter equivalent. it has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the rv industry for class b and c chassis. the order backlog for the sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. given the success of the sprinter ive wondered why ford doesnt import a version of its similar european van for sale in the us. ed .

From : steve

mike simmons wrote for now. i bet the sprinter will get tossed from the dodge lineup and only benz and freightliner will badge it in the future. if chrysler was smart they would develop their own sprinter equivalent. it has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the rv industry for class b and c chassis. the order backlog for the sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. mike yeah but that market segment really isnt huge compared to others and profit margins on rv chassis is not huge either. i have read that even ford is killing their e-series which has been a really important player in that market for many years. a big player in a little market segment isnt necessarily going to help a company that needs to cut fat and get competitive in its core markets again. it will be very interesting to see if chrysler survives this whole mess. i hope so but i fear the worst. they have a few promising products either on the market or in the pipe. the new minivan really raises the bar on features leaving honduh in the dust.... again and the challenger is of course a work of art. but is it enough probably not without a small car better or at least more conventional than the caliber and a midsize far better than the avenger/sebring. were kinda in another chrysler slump like happend 1958 and again in 1978. the core engineering engines/transmissions/major systems is as good or better than any in the world but there are gaps in the lineup and problems with some models have tainted the perception of everything. .

From : steve

lloyd wrote it will be very interesting to see if chrysler survives this whole mess. i hope so but i fear the worst. they have a few promising products either on the market or in the pipe. the new minivan really raises the bar on features leaving honduh in the dust.... actually it hasnt fared well in tests -- both car & driver and consumer reports continue to rank the sienna and odyssey higher of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. motor trend while not on your list didnt even include a ram truck in their truck of the year evaluation article and of course gave toty to the poseur toyota tundra. id like to see that thing last one week with the kind of treatment we gave trucks when i was a kid working summers hauling hay with old fords dodges and chevies. and its even worse by todays standards the dumb thing doesnt even have a diesel engine option the big v8 eats its own camshafts and its absurd to introduce such an over-sized gas-pig at a time like this... but just because its a toyota its a foregone conclusion that it will be toty. and the ram is *still* the only one with a true truck diesel engine has the lowest diesel emissions of any of them but it doesnt make the list because its a chrysler product. what a joke. just remember these are the same magazines that declared the renault alliance coty and declared that the first toyota and nissan minivans were going to drive chrysler out of that market too. -p and people wonder why i ignore the mainstream automotive magazines... especially in handling and ride why didnt chrysler go to independent rear suspension. also as is the case with many current chryslers both magazines criticized the cheap flimsy-looking interiors. actually i dont find the new minvan interiors any more flimsy than any other modern mostly-plastic interior myself. and the new seating and entertainment system layouts are just what the 2.5 kid generic american family ordered to move to something with a lot better mileage than a tahoe or expedition. you just have to get used to the mainstream automotive press trashing chrysler. they always have and always will except for rare moments of insight like declaring the 69 roadrunner coty. again and the challenger is of course a work of art. see i disagree. i think the new camaro wins the styling contest. one word ewww!!!! but styling is a personal thing. i cant stand the new camaro but the challenger and mustang both work for me as re-iterpretations of the originals. .

From : scott in socal

on mon 07 jan 2008 175514 gmt stephen harding smharding16@msn.com wrote ive heard the quality of toyotas and hondas built in the us is poorer than those built in japan. that has certainly been my experience. a sad story if true. indeed. -- you can all kiss my @ss! - carl rogers message-id ie1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com .

From : steve

lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. yes chrysler has made some engineering screw-ups i give you the 2.7 liter v6... but theyre few and far between. certainly fewer and further between than the rag writers would have us believe. .

From : brent p

lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. .

From : stephen harding

steve wrote and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. yes chrysler has made some engineering screw-ups i give you the 2.7 liter v6... but theyre few and far between. certainly fewer and further between than the rag writers would have us believe. isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck ive heard the quality of toyotas and hondas built in the us is poorer than those built in japan. a sad story if true. it took detroit about 10 years to lose the confidence of the american automobile buying public and it will take a while to get it back as well. another sad story that it took the japanese to get detroit to once again build a quality automobile which i think is now more often the case than not. the japanese still build the best quality car though. smh .

From : c e white

isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck and what has that got to do with anything it still says toyota. ive heard the quality of toyotas and hondas built in the us is poorer than those built in japan. a sad story if true. it took detroit about 10 years to lose the confidence of the american automobile buying public and it will take a while to get it back as well. another sad story that it took the japanese to get detroit to once again build a quality automobile which i think is now more often the case than not. the japanese managed to break into the us market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70s toyotas and datsun or the late 70s hondas but i am not. i still vidly remember my sisters 1980 accord and my 1984 toyota cressida - rolling junk and they were good japanese cars. i can also remember the early civics toyota 1200 etc.....cheap unreliable slow ugly etc. etc. etc.... the japanese still build the best quality car though. and your proof is and how do you define quality ed .

From : steve

stephen harding wrote isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck dont know or care where it was designed. its built in the us- they built a whole new plant near san antonio just for that vehicle. that doesnt change the fact that its the wrong vehicle for the times- its the ultimate in a city truck poseur gas-hog. no real work truck option but its huge anyway. at least the honda ridgeline didnt pretend to be a real working pickup truck. .

From : stephen harding

c. e. white wrote isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck and what has that got to do with anything it still says toyota. ive heard the quality of toyotas and hondas built in the us is poorer than those built in japan. a sad story if true. it took detroit about 10 years to lose the confidence of the american automobile buying public and it will take a while to get it back as well. another sad story that it took the japanese to get detroit to once again build a quality automobile which i think is now more often the case than not. the japanese managed to break into the us market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70s toyotas and datsun or the late 70s hondas but i am not. i still vidly remember my sisters 1980 accord and my 1984 toyota cressida - rolling junk and they were good japanese cars. i can also remember the early civics toyota 1200 etc.....cheap unreliable slow ugly etc. etc. etc.... yes initially their primary quality was they were cheap. you could get yourself a honda or toyota for a lot less than any american vehicle. they really came into their own after the first oil crisis in the early 70s. they were small cars with small engines underpowered to be sure but did much better than the more typical 12 mpg of an american car. then they started building cheap small *high quality* cars. they developed reputations for this attribute while detroit was squandering their good reputations. whats the result for this past year gmc down 6% ford down 13% and toyota up 12% if my memory hasnt mangled the numbers toyota up gm/ford down at least. the japanese still build the best quality car though. and your proof is and how do you define quality consumer report surveys. jd power initial quality surveys. my own very good mechanics that admit they seem to see fewer problems with the japanese made vehicles than the american ones. youre welcome to trash cr. i do myself. but their surveys of longer term car quality is based on people responses not something they make up. people may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences about their cars but if so i would not think the brand of the car would matter. there are lots of toyotas and hondas out there so i dont think this is a sampling bias. american cars *do* have more problems although many of the reports on car quality i have read now put american and japanese cars very close in quality of build and reliability. the european manufacturers are still quite far out from the japanese. you have sources of information that dispute this what are the sources smh .

From : jeffrey david miller

lloyd wrote it will be very interesting to see if chrysler survives this whole mess. i hope so but i fear the worst. they have a few promising products either on the market or in the pipe. the new minivan really raises the bar on features leaving honduh in the dust.... actually it hasnt fared well in tests -- both car & driver and consumer reports continue to rank the sienna and odyssey higher of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. motor trend while not on your list didnt even include a ram truck in their truck of the year evaluation article and of course gave toty to the poseur toyota tundra. id like to see that thing last one week with the kind of treatment we gave trucks when i was a kid working summers hauling hay with old fords dodges and chevies. and its even worse by todays standards the dumb thing doesnt even have a diesel engine option the big v8 eats its own camshafts and its absurd to introduce such an over-sized gas-pig at a time like this... but just because its a toyota its a foregone conclusion that it will be toty. and the ram is *still* the only one with a true truck diesel engine has the lowest diesel emissions of any of them but it doesnt make the list because its a chrysler product. what a joke. just remember these are the same magazines that declared the renault alliance coty and declared that the first toyota and nissan minivans were going to drive chrysler out of that market too. -p and people wonder why i ignore the mainstream automotive magazines... its funny my old boss used to tease my about my old 94 1500 ram with 315k on the orginal 315. he had a silverado land yatch club cab with 8 ft bed. he kept it 1 year. nothing but problems cracked exauhst manifold frame vibration could drive any faster than 80mph in the thing it shoock so bad and gas mileage was even worse. he traded it in on a new tundra. his new pride and joy. he baosted to everyone how it was such a wonderful new truck. powerful and so much better than the chevy. light years beyond that old dodge i drove. however i talked to a freind of mine the other day who told me its no sitting in the door yard waiting for toyota to come get the thing its seems that he blew the motor stuck in his own drive way with the job trailer on the back. to make matters worse the suspension of the truck is now shot from towing the job trailer seems it could take the wieght. i towed that same trailer for 2 yrs with old dodge no problems. i told my freind to let him know that i still had the old dodge out back if he wanted a real truck .

From : ted mittelstaedt

mike simmons wrote for now. i bet the sprinter will get tossed from the dodge lineup and only benz and freightliner will badge it in the future. if chrysler was smart they would develop their own sprinter equivalent. it has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the rv industry for class b and c chassis. the order backlog for the sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. mike yeah but that market segment really isnt huge compared to others and profit margins on rv chassis is not huge either. i have read that even ford is killing their e-series which has been a really important player in that market for many years. a big player in a little market segment isnt necessarily going to help a company that needs to cut fat and get competitive in its core markets again. it will be very interesting to see if chrysler survives this whole mess. they will. but they probably wont survive as an independent car company. these venture capital firms are all the same. they buy failing companies at firesale prices. then they slash labor and any product that has a high labor and keep the products that are profitable. then they kill investment in r&d so the company does not have any new products coming into pipeline. now the company is profitable but as it has no future it will not stay profitable over the long term. the last step is then selling the company to a larger company that has similar product line for a lot of money. my guess is they are dolling up chrysler for eventual sale to general motors or toyota. ted .

From : stephen harding

steve wrote stephen harding wrote isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck dont know or care where it was designed. its built in the us- they built a whole new plant near san antonio just for that vehicle. that doesnt change the fact that its the wrong vehicle for the times- its the ultimate in a city truck poseur gas-hog. no real work truck option but its huge anyway. at least the honda ridgeline didnt pretend to be a real working pickup truck. that may be true but most pickup trucks on the road today and for quite a few years in the past have not been work trucks. the tundra pretty much matches what the market for a half ton pickup truck is now days. gas hog i wouldnt think 15-20 mpg would be considered gas hog given thats pretty much what the fords dodges and chevys get. smh .

From : roy

isnt the tundra a largely us designed and built truck and what has that got to do with anything it still says toyota. ive heard the quality of toyotas and hondas built in the us is poorer than those built in japan. a sad story if true. it took detroit about 10 years to lose the confidence of the american automobile buying public and it will take a while to get it back as well. another sad story that it took the japanese to get detroit to once again build a quality automobile which i think is now more often the case than not. the japanese managed to break into the us market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70s toyotas and datsun or the late 70s hondas but i am not. i still vidly remember my sisters 1980 accord and my 1984 toyota cressida - rolling junk and they were good japanese cars. i can also remember the early civics toyota 1200 etc.....cheap unreliable slow ugly etc. etc. etc.... im old enough to remember the vega pinto and so on. the japanese still build the best quality car though. and your proof is and how do you define quality how about drive it. .

From : edward ohare

on mon 07 jan 2008 223427 gmt stephen harding smharding16@msn.com wrote youre welcome to trash cr. i do myself. but their surveys of longer term car quality is based on people responses not something they make up. all that has to be done to finish off the japanese reputation for high quality is to have all their cars driven maintained and the cr surveys filled out by current ford owners. .

From : bill putney

c. e. white wrote the japanese managed to break into the us market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70s toyotas and datsun or the late 70s hondas but i am not. i still vidly remember my sisters 1980 accord and my 1984 toyota cressida - rolling junk and they were good japanese cars. i can also remember the early civics toyota 1200 etc.....cheap unreliable slow ugly etc. etc. etc.... all i remember is that the early honda engines self destructed somewhere shy of 100k mile iirc in normal use though that cant be said of their engines today. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

stephen harding wrote that may be true but most pickup trucks on the road today and for quite a few years in the past have not been work trucks. but with ford/dodge/gm that is a matter of how they are *optioned* by the buyer and all are at their core work vehicles and can be bought as low-optioned rubber-floor-mat vehicles. gas hog i wouldnt think 15-20 mpg would be considered gas hog given thats pretty much what the fords dodges and chevys get. theyre pretty comparable *empty* but loaded theres a huge difference. the big 3 all have diesels for highly fuel-efficient heavy duty work. the tundra does not. if you want to tow a big trailer with a tundra youre stuck with a sub-10 mpg gasoline v8 combination just like back in the days of the v10 gasoline ram or a 454 chevy. admittedly the bigger toyota v8 has the power to handle a load like that very well but its going to suck down gas at a prodigious rate. otoh the diesels can give mid teens economy with a loaded trailer. even the very early diesel dodge ram non-intercooled 1990 12-valve cummins and 3-speed non-lockup automatic! would give 14 mpg with a fully loaded 5th wheel cattle trailer. been there seen that had to pick my jaw up off the floor. the difference between gas and diesel is that the thermodynamic efficiency of a turbo-diesel goes up with increasing load so the net result is that fuel mileage decreases less with increasing load on the turbo-diesel than it does on a normally-aspirated gasoline engine. .

From : brent p

on jan 7 1044 am tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. i must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability fun to drive etc. if you can tell me which issue thats in... you wouldnt even accept engineering journals on abs and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. but hey you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting science from the nytimes popular science and national review. the scientific journals lacking the consumer everyman type things. but you bash people for that you deserve it back when you get your ideas of abs system design from consumer reports. .

From : miles

steve wrote but with ford/dodge/gm that is a matter of how they are *optioned* by the buyer and all are at their core work vehicles and can be bought as low-optioned rubber-floor-mat vehicles. they can be but its not the typical market as it was years ago. in the 70s and 80s pickups were cheap dependable transportation and could do some work. the upper end fully loaded ones still were rather plain. todays trucks are optioned the same as cars with all the bells and whistles. they are no longer the bargain transportation vehicle they once were. thats especially true for mini trucks which back then were considerably lower priced than a full sized. not any more. .

From : edward ohare

on tue 08 jan 2008 031925 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote c. e. white wrote the japanese managed to break into the us market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70s toyotas and datsun or the late 70s hondas but i am not. i still vidly remember my sisters 1980 accord and my 1984 toyota cressida - rolling junk and they were good japanese cars. i can also remember the early civics toyota 1200 etc.....cheap unreliable slow ugly etc. etc. etc.... all i remember is that the early honda engines self destructed somewhere shy of 100k mile iirc in normal use really where i was they all the hondas were rusted in half before anyone could drive them that far. .

From : brent p

on jan 8 325 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 7 1044 am tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. i must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability fun to drive etc. if you can tell me which issue thats in... you wouldnt even accept engineering journals on abs and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. but hey you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting science from the nytimes popular science and national review. the scientific journals lacking the consumer everyman type things. but you bash people for that you deserve it back when you get your ideas of abs system design from consumer reports. no because im not talking about how to engineer a car but whether its reliable whether it handles well etc. those you get from the people testing them and the owners reporting on them. 1 you neglect the term brings back memories 2 where do you thing good handling and reliability come from science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the distinction. thats the old lloyd i remember.... so have you learned that correlation is not causation yet lol... .

From : dori a schmetterling

the bit about chrysler being silent is an old joke.... of course german daimler is pronounced dimelur. ai is a diphthong pronounced as in i or eye. the english daimler is pronounced damelur however. once a subsidiary of german daimler it separated long ago. http//www.vea.qc.ca/vea/marques1/daimlergb.htm http//www.marktechlimited.co.uk/classiccars/webpage2.0.htm das for direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... however the mystery of the pronunciation of daimlerchrysler was finally resolved. to american eyes it looked like it should have been pronounced dame lur cry slur. yet ads during mercedes ownership consistently said dime lur cry slur. it was pronounced dime lur said mr. tungensheek. the chrysler was silent. .

From : brent p

on jan 10 318 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote engineering is a balance of many different things. different manufacturers weight the factors differently. some manufacturers weight different products differently. the balance point for a ford gt is universe away from the balance point for a taurus. the balance point for a porsche 911 is in a different universe than a chrysler minivan. your childish tv commerical view of engineering is far worse than the view of science had by the people you chastise. so youre saying porsche deliberately makes unreliable vehicles gee! of course thats not what they say. keep displaying your complete ignorance of engineering lloyd. how long does a race cars engine last why is it reliable for only a such short period of time how was the design balanced between performance and long term reliability have you figured it out yet .

From : brent p

on jan 9 233 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 8 325 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 7 1044 am tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. i must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability fun to drive etc. if you can tell me which issue thats in... you wouldnt even accept engineering journals on abs and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. but hey you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting science from the nytimes popular science and national review. the scientific journals lacking the consumer everyman type things. but you bash people for that you deserve it back when you get your ideas of abs system design from consumer reports. no because im not talking about how to engineer a car but whether its reliable whether it handles well etc. those you get from the people testing them and the owners reporting on them. 1 you neglect the term brings back memories 2 where do you thing good handling and reliability come from science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering. im asking for quality for reliability for fun to drive. tell me which of these are in the realm of engineers. all of it and more. at some companies the engineers are the industrial designers too. im sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the distinction. thats the old lloyd i remember.... so have you learned that correlation is not causation yet lol... havent you learned that if you want to know how something holds up you ask the people using it not the sae cr doesnt give an accurate picture of that. its such a little club its about asking obama supporters what they think gravel. anyway your double standard comes into play here because just like people who arent chemistry professors arent interested in reading entire chemistry papers in a journal but just want the jist of it in a simple article you want the jist of reliability in a simple article. you dont want to read engineering journal articles on the topics so youll never know why your favorite publication for the masses is flawed. i deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge problems seem minor or worse unknown! .

From : brent p

on jan 10 254 pm ed pirrero gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote on jan 10 1152 am lloyd lpar...@emory.edu wrote on jan 9 233 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 8 325 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 7 1044 am tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. i must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability fun to drive etc. if you can tell me which issue thats in... you wouldnt even accept engineering journals on abs and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. but hey you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting science from the nytimes popular science and national review. the scientific journals lacking the consumer everyman type things. but you bash people for that you deserve it back when you get your ideas of abs system design from consumer reports. no because im not talking about how to engineer a car but whether its reliable whether it handles well etc. those you get from the people testing them and the owners reporting on them. 1 you neglect the term brings back memories 2 where do you thing good handling and reliability come from science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering. im asking for quality for reliability for fun to drive. tell me which of these are in the realm of engineers. uhhh lloyd without engineers you get precisely none of those things. proper mechanical design and specification make reliability happen. that almost describes engineering. e.p. wrong. if so bmw and mercedes and porsche would have the most reliable vehicles. they dont. theres a lot more to building a reliable product. engineering is a balance of many different things. different manufacturers weight the factors differently. some manufacturers weight different products differently. the balance point for a ford gt is universe away from the balance point for a taurus. the balance point for a porsche 911 is in a different universe than a chrysler minivan. your childish tv commerical view of engineering is far worse than the view of science had by the people you chastise. .

From : brent p

on jan 9 233 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 8 325 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 7 1044 am tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote lloyd wrote of course but the magazine goobers dont know a good vehicle from their own backside. oh give it a rest. when the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan chrysler products consider theyre right and you are blind. when my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion i dont believe im blind. yada yada yada. grow up. your blind chauvanistic cheerleading for chrysler is tiring and childish. and your quasi-religious faith in what professional writers not scientists or engineers repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that toyota screws up just as much as anyone else but they do so grudgingly. this brings back usenet memories.... parker still worships consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. of course he wont pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in saes magazine. i must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability fun to drive etc. if you can tell me which issue thats in... you wouldnt even accept engineering journals on abs and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. but hey you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting science from the nytimes popular science and national review. the scientific journals lacking the consumer everyman type things. but you bash people for that you deserve it back when you get your ideas of abs system design from consumer reports. no because im not talking about how to engineer a car but whether its reliable whether it handles well etc. those you get from the people testing them and the owners reporting on them. 1 you neglect the term brings back memories huh old age getting to you dr. parker 2 where do you thing good handling and reliability come from oh and you think every engineer is going to be honest well we didnt design good handling into this car and reliability only comes about from usage not from talking to the engineers. jeez are you really this dense *laugh* dishonest as always parker. did i say anything about talking to an engineer no. although most engineers ive known who were worth anything would tell people straight up if the product they worked on was crap. it was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff i was very familiar with... science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering! im asking for information only people using the product can provide. tell me do you trust microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say i see the point has gone right over your head. remeber the great abs threads you argued engineering as it was presented to you by mass media publications. in other threads you chastised people for getting science from mass media publications. thats the memory your recent comments brought back. im sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the distinction. thats the old lloyd i remember.... so have you learned that correlation is not causation yet lol... the double replies to the same posts too... where have you been really it would be much more fun for you to be back and displace gpsman and his gender-nonspecific buddy in co. .

From : steve

science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering! im asking for information only people using the product can provide. tell me do you trust microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say you just proved our side of this discussion. if we listed to what users said well.... most computer users do use microsoft products. but the fact is i listen to what knowledgeable users say and most of them try to avoid ms products when there are alternatives. all car users are not created equal but all car users get an equal voice in cr. thus the results are skewed by the perception of non-engineer users who have no understanding of why a car is doing something they do or dont like... or for that matter why what they like is not what is objectively the best characteristic. .

From : brent p

cr doesnt give an accurate picture of that. its such a little club its huh half a million people do the auto survey. you still dont get it. a decade and you still dont get it. not worth my time explaining it to you again. ok like i asked before tell me what engineering journal article tells me how reliable a caravan is or an odyssey. thats not the argument and you know it. i deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the corection ^selecting worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge problems seem minor or worse unknown! and this affects chrysler differently from honda how it means crs data cannot produce reliable results. .

From : edward ohare

on thu 10 jan 2008 115231 -0800 pst lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote havent you learned that if you want to know how something holds up you ask the people using it not the sae really i thought if you wanted to know how something holds up youd try to wear it out under repeatable verifiable controlled conditions. all things cu surveys lack. .

From : brent p

on jan 10 325 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote 2 where do you thing good handling and reliability come from oh and you think every engineer is going to be honest well we didnt design good handling into this car and reliability only comes about from usage not from talking to the engineers. jeez are you really this dense *laugh* dishonest as always parker. did i say anything about talking to an engineer no. although most engineers ive known who were worth anything would tell people straight up if the product they worked on was crap. it was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff i was very familiar with... so youre claiming either chrysler engineers design cars to be unreliable or they think they are reliable when the owners report theyre not that theyre either dumb or dumber nice strawmen parker. science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering! im asking for information only people using the product can provide. tell me do you trust microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say i see the point has gone right over your head. remeber the great abs threads you argued engineering as it was presented to you by mass media publications. in other threads you chastised people for getting science from mass media publications. thats the memory your recent comments brought back. again im not asking for engineering. whether a caravan has transmission trouble after 1 year is not something you find in an engineering journal. its something the owners tell you. youre purposely missing the point. and answer the microsoft question. who would you go to to find out about their software their own engineers or the users of the software its a simple question. i am not following your tangents. .

From : brent p

on jan 11 117 pm steve n...@spam.thanks wrote science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering! im asking for information only people using the product can provide. tell me do you trust microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say you just proved our side of this discussion. if we listed to what users said well.... most computer users do use microsoft products. but the fact is i listen to what knowledgeable users say and most of them try to avoid ms products when there are alternatives. all car users are not created equal but all car users get an equal voice in cr. thus the results are skewed by the perception of non-engineer users who have no understanding of why a car is doing something they do or dont like... or for that matter why what they like is not what is objectively the best characteristic. from cr 1. is this a scientific survey there are generally two criteria that social scientists use to evaluate the quality of a survey its validity and its reliability. validity refers to whether the survey actually measures what it says it does. reliability refers to whether the information generated by the survey would be repeated if the survey were to be conducted again. note social science. basically its like political poll. its not technical its social. its about feelings and perceptions not technical fact. a bunch of people really pissed off that a hub cap discolored on a car and it gets bad ratings... but im buying it with alloy wheels so the bad rating is misleading for me but i dont know the rating was caused by discolored plastic hub caps. .

From : nate nagel

edward ohare wrote on thu 10 jan 2008 115231 -0800 pst lloyd lparker@emory.edu wrote havent you learned that if you want to know how something holds up you ask the people using it not the sae really i thought if you wanted to know how something holds up youd try to wear it out under repeatable verifiable controlled conditions. all things cu surveys lack. remind me never to mention lloyds name again. i think i mentioned something about his absence from rad in a thread a week or two ago and speak of the devil. nate -- replace roosters with cox to reply. http//members.cox.net/njnagel .

From : brent p

i pointed out cr is where you can read about reliability and you chided me for not reading sae engineering journals instead. no i stated it brought back memories of the great abs threads where you insisted on getting your engineering from c&d and cr. it means crs data cannot produce reliable results. it can for the purpose theyre intended -- not as an absolute guide 5% of caravans experience problems but as a relative one a larger % of caravans experience problems than do odysseses. its worse than reading reviews on amazon.com. at least amazon.com allows people to explain things they write it out. cr well you get a bunch of symbols. .

From : brent p

on jan 14 559 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote i pointed out cr is where you can read about reliability and you chided me for not reading sae engineering journals instead. no i stated it brought back memories of the great abs threads where you insisted on getting your engineering from c&d and cr. it means crs data cannot produce reliable results. it can for the purpose theyre intended -- not as an absolute guide 5% of caravans experience problems but as a relative one a larger % of caravans experience problems than do odysseses. its worse than reading reviews on amazon.com. at least amazon.com allows people to explain things they write it out. cr well you get a bunch of symbols. yeah kind of like graphs in those journals eh gee you actually have to read some text to know what the graph represents. maybe cr readers are smart enough to do that. you guess that went over your head. its not i or anyone else cant read the key to see what the symbols mean its that cr has by confines of their survey and their data processing has removed the details. for instance in reading the reviews of a company online or ebay or whatever i tend to hit that worst button and read those. i can tell by what they wrote if they were the dumbass or the company was doing something wrong. cant do that with cr. no way to tell if their result has been skewed for a particular model by one or three dumbasses who never changed the oil. cant tell with cr if the results are skewed by people who overly nit-picky for a particular vehicle. theres no way to tell between real fit and finish issues or people who thought the bottom the floor pans should be painted body color and polished. on amazon the guy concerned about polished floor pans is written off as nutty on cr he impacts the result. .

From : steve

lloyd wrote on jan 11 117 pm steve n...@spam.thanks wrote science you get from scientists. but you wont get your engineering from engineers. im not asking for engineering! im asking for information only people using the product can provide. tell me do you trust microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say you just proved our side of this discussion. if we listed to what users said well.... most computer users do use microsoft products. but the fact is i listen to what knowledgeable users say and most of them try to avoid ms products when there are alternatives. but you should be asking the microsoft engineers from what youve been saying in this thread. uh.... where did i ever imply that we should be asking only the car-company engineers for which the ms engineers would be a metaphor in the foregoeing example. *i* said that i give more credence to what engineering-knowledgable drivers and reviewers magazines other than cr car and driver motor trend etc have to say. all car users are not created equal but all car users get an equal voice in cr. gee i didnt realize some owners were worth more than others. tell me which owners know if their steering has a problem after a year and which ones dont people who know no better than to list the engine as unreliable when they have a problem with the alternator are indeed worth far less as useful reviewers not as human beings than people who know the difference and know that the alternator is made by nippondenso and not by chrysler anyway. and this affects chryslers differently from hondas how it affects every damn thing cr reviews which is why the magazine is worthless even for buying a toaster. .

From : steve

nate nagel wrote remind me never to mention lloyds name again. i think i mentioned something about his absence from rad in a thread a week or two ago and speak of the devil. nate that tears it. you owe us all a shiny new crate engine of our choosing... - .

From : brent p

on jan 11 301 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote on jan 10 318 pm tetraethylleadremovet...@yahoo.com brent p wrote engineering is a balance of many different things. different manufacturers weight the factors differently. some manufacturers weight different products differently. the balance point for a ford gt is universe away from the balance point for a taurus. the balance point for a porsche 911 is in a different universe than a chrysler minivan. your childish tv commerical view of engineering is far worse than the view of science had by the people you chastise. so youre saying porsche deliberately makes unreliable vehicles gee! of course thats not what they say. keep displaying your complete ignorance of engineering lloyd. how long does a race cars engine last this is as relevant to the discussion at hand as talking about the computers in the space shuttle when comparing dell and mac reliability. again you demonstrate you have no clue what so ever about engineering. you dont even grasp the conceptual level. why is it reliable for only a such short period of time how was the design balanced between performance and long term reliability have you figured it out yet .