Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed

On Dec 4, 9:48 pm, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM... DeleteThis @alltel.net> 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.
>

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.  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.  

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?  

For one thing, they're 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 Corolla's mileage, for example.

>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.  

Perhaps because you refuse to see anything wrong with Chrysler. I bet
you'd claim a Caliber is higher quality inside than a Mercedes S-
class. Geez, at least have the honesty to admit you're as biased as
Bush on Iraq.

>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.  

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... DeleteThis @alltel.net
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On Dec 5, 10:08 am, Steve <n....DeleteThis@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
> > On 2008-12-04, Bill Putney <b....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."

Ford? Yes. But Chrysler? Again, you're so biased we chuckle at
every post.

Look at some objective numbers. J D Power, Consumer Reports. Don't
just sit there and type Chrysler is the best thing on the road. It's
just plain laughable.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On Dec 5, 10:17 am, Steve <n... RemoveThis @spam.thanks> wrote:
> 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.

No, I believe it because every objective testing shows it. You, OTOH,
believe Chrysler must be best because Chrysler must be best. You're
as stubborn as Bush on Iraq.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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 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.

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 you're 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')
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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 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)...

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 you're 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 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

I like it!

--
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 

In article <493942ae$1@kcnews01>,
C. E. White <cewhite3 DeleteThis @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
>CEO's 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 they've put their money
in fail, they lose too.

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:21:24 -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 don't get it do you? It isn't about the number of speeds. It's 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 10,000 rpm's.

This. I can tool around all day in my '55 Stude and only use second and
fourth. If you've got bags of torque all the way from off idle to 5K,
you don't need gears.

What *will* get you better mileage is gear *spread* - I'd 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
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On Dec 9, 8:27 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-09, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM....RemoveThis@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:33:19 -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.  You're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk
> > about things you don't understand at all.
>
> It's 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On 2008-12-09, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE.RemoveThis@alltel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:33:19 -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. You're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk
> about things you don't understand at all.

It's lloyd. You expect him to understand that the number of speeds is
irrelevant to the ratios?
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On 2008-12-09, Lloyd <lparker DeleteThis @emory.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:27 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-12-09, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM... DeleteThis @alltel.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:33:19 -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.  You're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk
>> > about things you don't understand at all.
>>
>> It's 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 Lloyd's typical dishonest debate tactics, there is
no basis if fact regarding the loaded question, just like I've never
offered an opinion on 2-speed powerglide transmissions.

Anyway Parker, there's no reason that a 2 speed transmission couldn't
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 don't 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. It's 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/technical_articles/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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

"Lloyd" <lparker.TakeThisOut@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:f648260e-e92a-425b-9b35-b9f32effee50@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 10:55 pm, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM....TakeThisOut@alltel.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:21:24 -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 don't get it do you? It isn't about the number of speeds. It's 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 1:1 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
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed 

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:34:13 -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.  You're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk
>> about things you don't 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 it's 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.


>
> Don't 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 newsgroup. 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.DeleteThis@alltel.net
 >> Stay informed about: Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed