Chrysler: Boycott bad quality

Why don't you be like some of us who spend $5000 restoring a used car and
drive it for another 1/4 million miles....instead of buying a new one and
bitching about how bad it is for the next year...Hell, my family hasn't
bought a new car since....1976! Where were you?

-rob

1974 Duster slant 6 (116,000 original miles on the OD)
1976 Feather Duster Hyperpak /6 (200,000+ on the OD but the last owner lost
his record book...)



"Phil Breau" <com> wrote in message
news:3f95fa41$com... 
else 
one 
beef 
we 
maybe 

"Phil Breau" <com> wrote in message
news:3f95fa41$com... 
else 
one 

People want clean air so we have to load the engine down with emissions
controls.

People want great mileage so we have to load the engine with comptuers to
extract the last fraction from the fuel.

People want to just jump in the car and start driving without bothering with
seat belts so we have to put in air bags and crap to cover their asses

People want to survive the accident that results when they drive their
sport vehicle 100Mpg down a twisty road like they do in the commercials
so we have to put in crumple zones, collapsable steering columns, and
such.

People want stereo systems controlled from the steering wheel, and
with speakers all over the car, and interconnected with their DVD player.

People want heated seats, air conditioning, electric door locks, and other
crapola that makes the car easier to live in.

All of this violates the KISS pinciple (Keep it simple stupid) It has
little
to do with profit, people want all this stuff even in the cheapest cars.
You
put all the extra stuff in the car, you create many more opportunities for
shit to break down.

Ted

I'll take fuel injection and electronic timing over a carburator and
points any day.


"Phil Breau" <com> wrote in message
news:3f95fa41$com... 
was easy 
could be 
anything else 
any one 
always beef 
from 
the 
it. If we 
then maybe 
Probably. 

Rob Armstrong wrote: 

But you don't drive much. My 1996 Plymouth Grand Voyager already has
141,000 miles...


Matt

Phil Breau wrote: 

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. I didn't own or drive any 50's cars,
but did drive several 60's cars. They needed tune-ups all the time,
points and rotors in particular. Plugs seldom lasted even 30,000 miles.
Front suspension parts seldom lasted 50,000 miles (ball joints, tie
rod ends, etc.). Exhaust systems seldom lasted 50,000 miles.

My 1996 Grand Voyager has 141,000 miles and has the original front
suspension parts and they are still nice and tight. Most 60s cars at
this mileage on original parts would have 2" of play at the steering
wheel. My exhaust system is still original. Spark plugs were replaced
at 100,000. And the 60s cars typically had rust-through of the body
within 6-7 years in my climate (northern PA), the worst being my
father's brand new 69 Ford Falcon that had HOLES in the fender when it
was only four years old! And it needed new ball joints at 25,000 miles
and about every 25,000 after that.

Sorry, but my experience doesn't support your assertion at all.


Matt

Very decent postings. But, cars were really not all that good in the '50s.

Most of my criticisms have been directed to current and late models, all
makes in general and occasionally Chrysler in specific. Actually, some
cars built in the last 25 years were much better than anything in the '50s.
The water cooled VW Rabbit of the late '70s, for instance, had front wheel
drive, disc front brakes, electro-mechanical fuel injection, and an
aluminum head (with hard steel valve seat inserts). All advanced features
which made it a very nice car good for 200,000 miles before everything was
worn out. Most didn't make half that much because VW routed the electric
fuel pump feed through a printed circuit board which burned out. Even
after a bypass recall, most VWs eventually wound up parked on a highway
shoulder, where the owner left it for the taking.

No, most cars of the '50s were dogs. Take the 1952 Chevrolet Deluxe.
Still used rod dippers and cast in-situ babbitt bearings. One trip up the
Grapevine and they all burned out. The 1957 Pontiac Chieftain would put
out 250 h.p., but not for very long. Its exhaust valves overheated and
warped and its twin fluid coupling Hydramatic would blow out its seals.
Its drum brakes were undersized for the immense bulk of the beast and
weren't good for more than one fast stop from 50 mph before they faded
away. And the exhaust pipes through the bumpers (the rumble sounded great)
rusted out the chrome, adding insult to injury. Maybe Ford and Chrysler had
the upper hand on GM in those days.

By the '60s, things started to improve. But, usually you had to "special
order" a car to get it right. There were dozens of options, like disk
brakes, heavy duty radiator and battery, power steering/brakes, many
engine/transmission/rear axle options, and many convenience/appearance
options. This type of selling eventually petered out so what we have today
are nice cars, fully equipped and so costly few people pay cash and carry.

Of course cars could get much better still and paradoxically cheaper, but
thats a matter of past and future postings.

"Matthew S. Whiting" <org> wrote in message
newsrg... 
easy 
be 
else 
one 
beef 
If we 
maybe 

It's nice to see other points of views. Our experience must be different.
Different is ok. My 89 Horizon has only 140,000 km and is pretty much done.
All city driving (less than 8 km to work). My first car was a 63 Chrysler
Saratoga. Drove it until 87. It had little rust. It was subjected to similar
if not worse climate (Toronto). Lots of salt in the city streets in winter.
It broke down once - drive shaft snapped in half! Other than some
inconveniences (I could fix myself) I could always rely on getting in my car
and going. These cars just died of old age.

Having bitched and griped about old and new, sorry folks, I have bought a 98
Chrysler Cirrus LXI. Opinions anyone? Good and bad

Q: What is the main reason for failures of today's cars?

It would be interesting to read all your opinions and facts


In closing: (sorry for being off topic)

My postings are my experiences and opinions. I respect all other opinions
because they are yours. There have been a few harsh responses that don't
make me feel too good about posting to this group. Remember this NG is just
about some friendly chat about cars, but that's just my opinion


Phil

Art Begun wrote: 

I won't... and I don't :-) But I do like electronic ignition. No points.

But the bottom line is very very few of us want to keep a car 35 years.
Yes, you CAN drive a 30 year old car every day in 2003 and all the parts
are still available and cheap (I know because I do it). And you probably
won't be able to drive a 2003 car daily in 30 years because some part
will be irreplacable because they haven't made that particular EPROM in
20 years and you can't get the required software build anymore. But so
what? That won't affect many people, and those that it does affect will
find a way to work around it if they're motivated enough (probably by
putting a carburetor in place of the EFI) :-) :-)