[PRCo] Re: Fwd: Re: Gazzz

[Fred Schneider]

Fred III was still laboring under the American production problems.    
Up until 1971 he had a father-in-law who was in the Hertz rental car  
business and he traded cars the same as Hertz.   Why?   Because there  
was so much profit built into new cars in those days that Fred III  
could put 25,000 on a car and then get a new one for less money than  
his father was spending on used cars.   But you had to have a buying  
connection.   My cars up through the 1971 Ford Tourino simply went  
through the dealer as one more fleet sale.

The Dodge Darts and Plymouth Valiants were pretty decent cars (except  
for the fact that John had more Bondo than steel in his when he  
scrapped it).  But most American cars through the 1970s were junk.    
Put 50,000 miles on them and they were in the repair shop all the  
time.   We still had 1,000 mile oil changes in the 1950s and 1960s.   
And twice a year tune ups.  Even into the 70s mufflers and tail pipes  
were 30,000 mile items unless you drove the hell out of the cars.     
My very sedate wife even blew up a transmission on a 78 Ford ... a  
part let go and went right through the wall of the tranny at 25,000  
miles and at 40 miles per hour.

And then sometime in the early 1980s the American auto makers  
discovered that the Japanese and Germans were whipping the pants off  
of them.   I bought a VW Rabbit in 1980 and got rid of it at 112,000  
and found out later that the salesman bought it for his son.   My  
1986 VW Golf went 175,000  when it was written off in an accident  
(someone drove into my niece).   The 1987 Jetta went 187,000.   The  
1998 Passat went 145,000 and I just didn't feel like replacing the  
engine oil seals but the dealer felt that it would go another 100,000  
if I wanted to spend the money.    Cars have improved.

Is it good or bad?   Probably good in terms of resource conservation  
after we reach a new manufacturing capacity equilibrium and after we  
have all the workers trained for new jobs.


On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:51 AM, John Swindler wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>