[PRCo] Re: Fwd: Re: Gazzz

[John Swindler]

What do you car a Toyota that is worn out at 250,000 miles???

a. abused <g>


I got 12 years and 141,000 miles out of my first car - a '72 Dodge Dart.  
The body was rusting out around an engine that still ran ok.  A friend had 
made a comment early on that the best thing you could do for a car was 
change the oil every 3,000 miles.   (I lost track of the number of cars both 
my parents and Fred III went through during those 12 years - but several in 
both cases.)

Since 1990, I've gone through three Ford Taurus.  Gave up on the first two 
at 200,000 miles and the third was totalled at 171,000 miles (and I was 
aiming for 250,000 miles).  Yes, the Japanese have caused a paradigm shift 
towards greater reliability - and I'm glad they have.

30 years ago, I guess it was unheard of to get 140,000 miles out of a car.  
Today it's expected.

John




>From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams at adelphia.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Fwd: Re: Gazzz
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:56:27 -0500
>
>In 1996 I took my 7-year-old Grand Marquis to California and back with
>150,000 miles on it.  Maintenance?  Changed the oil on schedule in Denver.
>The cars today are SO much better than the last generation.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
>Schneider
>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:39 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Fwd: Re: Gazzz
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>