Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed

Please tell me where in the owner's manual it directs the owner to do this.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Please show me where they show any advantage at all over glass lenses.

Oh, that's right, glass is far superior.

"Mike Hunter" talking out of his ass again... don't 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
>
> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gh9q3p$gf6$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn RemoveThis @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, that's pretty much
>> everyone's cars with plastic lenses. It's 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
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:39:23 -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 10,000 rpm's. If
these cars sap so much power, then why do more GM cars achieve over 30mpg
than any other brand of car? If you're 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 don't see those interiors as so different from the competition. I don't
think they are anywhere as nice as they used to be, but they fit in with
everyone else these days.

>
> 4. Engines which aren't 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 don't 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.RemoveThis@alltel.net
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On 2008-12-05, Nate Nagel <njnagel.TakeThisOut@roosters.net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn.TakeThisOut@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, that's pretty much
>> everyone's cars with plastic lenses. It's 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 can't 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 didn't have sealed beam
headlamps. First year of aero headlamps for the 626. It had glass
lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On 2008-12-05, Bill Putney <bptn.RemoveThis@kinez.net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn.RemoveThis@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, that's pretty much
>> everyone's cars with plastic lenses. It's 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 don't 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 Buick's 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).

I've 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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 you've changed your 'from' to cut through filters again.

Anyway, while you try to be argumentive, you've 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn.RemoveThis@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, that's pretty much
>>> everyone's cars with plastic lenses. It's 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 don't 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 Buick's 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. They'll 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')
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

"Bill Putney" <bptn RemoveThis @kinez.net> wrote in message
news:6pr67rF9fn3qU1@mid.individual.net...

> 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 sister's Honda had that
problem. Her neighbor's 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 hasn't built vehicles with
that problem? And don't tell me BMWs don't do it, because one car in
the parking lot is 3 series BMW and it has the problem too.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

Bill Putney wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn DeleteThis @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, that's pretty much
>> everyone's cars with plastic lenses. It's 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 don't 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 Buick's 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).
>


Where's Stern when you really need him?

What he's 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 I've bought for other vehicles. Another complete contrast
from the LH cars....
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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 can't 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <bptn DeleteThis @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.).
>
> That's 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."
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:39:23 -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 doesn't
run crying to the dealership for every problem, so they couldn't
stealth-fix a large enough percentage of the customer base's 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 10,000 rpm's. If
> these cars sap so much power, then why do more GM cars achieve over 30mpg
> than any other brand of car? If you're 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 don't see those interiors as so different from the competition. I don't
> 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 I've owned
even had extremely easy to service dash assemblies. The panels are solid
and don't 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 don't 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 haven't 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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
CEO's 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 won't 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 Pelosi's Ring (or a**).

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed