[PRCo] Fwd: Re: Gazzz

[Fred Schneider]

I passed all the pertinent comments under the above subject back to  
Bruce Bente.   This is his response to Bill Robb.   The comment about  
starting a trip in 2004 with a car with 127,000 miles was my Passat;  
I got rid of it rather than replace oil seals early in 2005 with  
147,000 on the clock.   It was one of those mixed message things ...  
even the service write up people at the VW dealer wavered on fixing  
or trading.
The problem I have is simple.   I'm an old man now and I have  
experiences from back when cars were not supposed to last long.   I  
can remember when 50,000 was a long time and when Hertz didn't keep  
cars over 24,000 miles because they became very unreliable.   And now  
my new car is 6 months old and has 20,000 on the clock.   Ouch.

Begin forwarded message:

> Some observations backing up what you say:
>
> I took my car in today for its big 90,000 ml. servicing.  It has  
> 93,000 miles, more than any car I've ever owned; usually by 90,000  
> miles the cars have been on their last legs and were real beaters,  
> and you wouldn't dare take one on a long trip.  But now, the car  
> still looks good and runs well.  And the 1990 Toyota Camry I sold  
> to a relative now has 150,000+ mls and is still running well.  And  
> of course in 2004 we took a 10,000 miles trip in a car with 127,000  
> mls at beginning of trip, and it ran fine.
>
> So yes, cars are definitely built better and lasting longer.  But  
> then we're paying $25,000 instead of $10,000 for the vehicle. Our  
> friendly Japanese carbuilders forced a paradigm shift to better,  
> more reliable cars in exchange for higher cost.  Is it worth the  
> shift?  I think so...the reliability of cars nowadays means a lot  
> to me, not having to worry about breakdowns on the road.
>
> So now the car dealers make their profit on maintenance instead of  
> selling new cars.  My car's servicing today will cost me $1500.