So how do you think Obama is doing so far?

02/01/2009 09:09:48 PM · #51

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Lisa and I had a Golden before the damn yuppies discovered them.

Originally posted by Flash:

You seem to have a disdain for certain people. Is it their pretentiousness, their displayed success, or do you truly feel that no one should have the right to live above your personal means? I don't think you are a bad person, but you write like a bitter one.

Yes, Flash, I certainly have a disdain for the segment of the population that damn near destroyed the breed......because of the demand, the larger, laid-back, easily trained Goldens all but became phased out by smaller, nervous, pointy-nosed iterations as they were snapped up as fast as the puppy mills could get them into the hands of the latte sipping, BMW driving, L.L.Bean wearing, Eddie Bauer types.

Don't project your interpretation on me.....I don't care how anyone lives unless it ruins a good thing or encroaches on my life.

Originally posted by Flash:

Please keep this in mind - many of those "yuppies" aren't very happy people. Owning a dog can be one of the greatest joys known to man. No other animal gives so much so freely and asks so little in return - unconditionally. Lots of dogs need rescuing these days. I hope the Obama's pick a rescue.

So you're a dog expert?

And a humanitarian, eh?

How mmany rescue animals you have under your wing?

I have six in my house and my wife is one of a couple women who try to keep after a feral cat population with catch & release neutering, medical care, and 365 day feeding.

So if I want to make disparaging remarks about people who view animals as an accessory, I will.

Message edited by author 2009-02-01 21:52:04.

02/01/2009 09:50:47 PM · #52

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

GM doesn't have a legacy image of lower quality, they consistently refuse to build their cars better because they've been able to get away with it for the last three decades.....their attitude has been, "F*ck 'em, they'll buy whatever junk we give 'em!".

It has caught up with them in spades, and now they're crying.

Originally posted by Flash:

Not true. When was the last time you drove a 2008 Malibu or CTS? Obama seems to like his new Cadillac - perhaps you should try one. Or maybe a Chevrolet HHR at 30mpg (like the govt wants GM to build) with fold flat rear seats, front wheel drive, and both 4 door and 2 door panel body styles and priced under 19K nicely optioned. Lots of small businesses are selecting these.

Flash, what on earth does this have to do with the mess that GM has made for itself with its practices over the last our decades?

Even if these cars were PERFECT in every way, how does that absolve the grievous and abysmal things they've done over the past four decades?

Your statement means nothing other than to indicate you know nothing about what got them into trouble.

Originally posted by Flash:

ETA: Cadillac and Lexus are either rated 1 or 2 in nearly every category they compete. Buick has a ride like no other vehicle on the road and have for decades. The Enclave is a star in its class with nearly every one who drives one - loving it. Luxurious, quiet, spacious and stylish. Pontiac has the Solstice coupe coming out this summer - a beautiful commuter car, with space behind the seats and gets 30mpg and priced at 19-22K - half of the comparable BMW. Corvette has led the world in its segment for many years as it relates to performance and value. No other manufacturer makes a vehicle competitively (with the Corvette) at GM's price point. The CTS has quickly become a world standard in its class. The chevrolet Malibu and its sister the Saturn Aura were multiple "car of the year" winners. The Saturn Vue is a very competitive cross over in its class with trim levels from sparse to loaded.

I really hope you look into a few of GM's offerings and take them for a test drive. They are far from the company of the 80's.

And again, you're spouting rhetoric that an ad agency would that has no meaning....you certainly cannot list a record of customer satisfaction and reliability because neither are there.

It wasn't just the 80s......it started about '71 when the government was getting underway mandating changes that the domestic automotive industry refused to make.

Changes that were desperately needed, that the European and other foreign manufacturers were doing because they could, the technology was developing, and these changes made for better automobiles.

But no......GM in particular dragged its heels and fought each and every change that came along.

You know that lovely little aluminum V8 that Rover group has been using for over 40 years?

Yep! GM sold it off 'cause they didn't see any use for a light, small displacement V8.

Remember the Cadillac Seville introduced in '76?

Yep! EFI 4-5 years before everyone else here had it, but instead of being smart, and buying ALL of the components from Bosch, like the rest of the world, they decided to make some of their own, and the car was an abysmal failure. It wouldn't be 'til '84 that they got a system sorted out that would run half decently.......and they did the SAME DAMN THING in '84, and screwed up components, spending millions of dollars replacing them with Bosch units to sraighten them out.

These are just two particularly stupid moves on GMs part, three if you count their EFI debacle as two separate mistakes, and they are quite typical of the way that General Motors uses the American public as their long term testing facility at the expense of those of us who were unfortunate enough to have bought their cars.

I can give you chapter and verse of engines, diesel & gas, transmissions, chassis parts, engine management pieces, interior parts, electrical components, and on and on.....

I've personally owned 10 of their cars over many years and I've had enough.....

General Motors has dug its own grave.

And the people who build the cars want more money?????

Yeah.......good idea!

Message edited by author 2009-02-01 22:13:40.

02/01/2009 10:09:10 PM · #53

Originally posted by karmat:

serious question because it just occurred to me - are there mountains in Michigan? (I'm thinking no, if I remember by US Geography correctly)

Yes, but they aren't much to holler about.

J-Me

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

02/01/2009 10:22:50 PM · #54

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

As for driving SUV's well, in most cities, it's not necessary but, being Canadian and having some pretty harsh winters (potholes included), there's often only that choice or, the choice and great cost of snow tires every winter (unless one is a handyman and able to change these tires yourself in the driveway each Fall and Spring :)). Even so, the fact that there will be 8 tires to each vehicle used on the road all year long begs the question of how we will dispose of all of these tires 10 years from now or, how we will recycle them??? You just don't see a lot of some of the smaller or hybrid cars on the roads up here in winter. Not that everyone needs an SUV or Ram but, the bottom line is that the SUVs are needed in certain instances and places and have their role. Now, Hummers are a different story! No one needs a Hummer. ;-)

Hmmm, we have a lot of cold and snow here in Michigan along with some of the worst road conditions in the states and there's no need for 4wd Trucks and SUV's. In fact, a great many of the slideoffs and rollovers that I see are people driving just such vehicles who equate 4wd with invincibility in snow and ice. As for the snow tires, they're not a necessity either, a good set of 4 season tires will do fine year round.

Yes, I agree....Michigan's winters are brutal.

I also agree that there are a lot of yo-yo's out there with 4wd vehicles who do, as you say, use them as though they are in tanks and therefore, create a lot of problems. However, for those of us who drive all day and long distances, driving responsibly and keeping in mind that they can't roll over cars stuck on the side LOL (as I've seen them try to do), an SUV can make the difference between a headache of a day, spinning wheels on hills and slowly but smoothly getting to where one has to be. Is it 100% necessary, no but, it can make a difference for those who have to travel a lot during their day. There's less usage of Advil and Tylenol or alcohol at the end of a bad winter's day! :)

As for the snow tires, well, call the government nuts but, at least one province in Canada (Quebec) has made it mandatory that everyone have snow tires on their cars. There's talk of other provinces, such as Ontario, also going to make it mandatory. So, while snow tires may be an option where you are, they are and may become a mandatory thing for a lot of us here. :) That question about what happens to all of the snow tires 10 years from now....really wasn't just a "what if" for us. :(

02/01/2009 10:32:56 PM · #55

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

As for the snow tires, well, call the government nuts but, at least one province in Canada (Quebec) has made it mandatory that everyone have snow tires on their cars. There's talk of other provinces, such as Ontario, also going to make it mandatory. So, while snow tires may be an option where you are, they are and may become a mandatory thing for a lot of us here. :) That question about what happens to all of the snow tires 10 years from now....really wasn't just a "what if" for us. :(

'Round here, we have what're called Snow Emergency routes, and if you get caught driving on them without full M&S tires when the state declares a Snow Emergency, you will be summarily fined and your vehicle will be impounded on the spot.

02/02/2009 06:55:26 AM · #56

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
GM doesn't have a legacy image of lower quality, they consistently refuse to build their cars better because they've been able to get away with it for the last three decades.....their attitude has been, "F*ck 'em, they'll buy whatever junk we give 'em!".

It has caught up with them in spades, and now they're crying.

Originally posted by Flash:
Not true. When was the last time you drove a 2008 Malibu or CTS? Obama seems to like his new Cadillac - perhaps you should try one. Or maybe a Chevrolet HHR at 30mpg (like the govt wants GM to build) with fold flat rear seats, front wheel drive, and both 4 door and 2 door panel body styles and priced under 19K nicely optioned. Lots of small businesses are selecting these.

Flash, what on earth does this have to do with the mess that GM has made for itself with its practices over the last our decades?

Even if these cars were PERFECT in every way, how does that absolve the grievous and abysmal things they've done over the past four decades?

Your statement means nothing other than to indicate you know nothing about what got them into trouble.
Originally posted by Flash:
ETA: Cadillac and Lexus are either rated 1 or 2 in nearly every category they compete. Buick has a ride like no other vehicle on the road and have for decades. The Enclave is a star in its class with nearly every one who drives one - loving it. Luxurious, quiet, spacious and stylish. Pontiac has the Solstice coupe coming out this summer - a beautiful commuter car, with space behind the seats and gets 30mpg and priced at 19-22K - half of the comparable BMW. Corvette has led the world in its segment for many years as it relates to performance and value. No other manufacturer makes a vehicle competitively (with the Corvette) at GM's price point. The CTS has quickly become a world standard in its class. The chevrolet Malibu and its sister the Saturn Aura were multiple "car of the year" winners. The Saturn Vue is a very competitive cross over in its class with trim levels from sparse to loaded.

I really hope you look into a few of GM's offerings and take them for a test drive. They are far from the company of the 80's.

And again, you're spouting rhetoric that an ad agency would that has no meaning....you certainly cannot list a record of customer satisfaction and reliability because neither are there.

It wasn't just the 80s......it started about '71 when the government was getting underway mandating changes that the domestic automotive industry refused to make.

Changes that were desperately needed, that the European and other foreign manufacturers were doing because they could, the technology was developing, and these changes made for better automobiles.

But no......GM in particular dragged its heels and fought each and every change that came along.

You know that lovely little aluminum V8 that Rover group has been using for over 40 years?

Yep! GM sold it off 'cause they didn't see any use for a light, small displacement V8.

Remember the Cadillac Seville introduced in '76?

Yep! EFI 4-5 years before everyone else here had it, but instead of being smart, and buying ALL of the components from Bosch, like the rest of the world, they decided to make some of their own, and the car was an abysmal failure. It wouldn't be 'til '84 that they got a system sorted out that would run half decently.......and they did the SAME DAMN THING in '84, and screwed up components, spending millions of dollars replacing them with Bosch units to sraighten them out.

These are just two particularly stupid moves on GMs part, three if you count their EFI debacle as two separate mistakes, and they are quite typical of the way that General Motors uses the American public as their long term testing facility at the expense of those of us who were unfortunate enough to have bought their cars.

I can give you chapter and verse of engines, diesel & gas, transmissions, chassis parts, engine management pieces, interior parts, electrical components, and on and on.....

I've personally owned 10 of their cars over many years and I've had enough.....

General Motors has dug its own grave.

And the people who build the cars want more money?????

Yeah.......good idea!

Lots of mention of negatives without any balance on the positives. Pretty one sided. No mention of Corvettes standing in the world. The Malibu, CTS, or even the recently dismantled 3800 made by Buick. The one that was renowned for its longevity - 20 years it was pruduced (1988-2008). From your portrayal - one might conclude that because Chicago/Illinois politics are dirty, then any politician from their ranks must be dirty too. Hmmmm.......if you can excuse Obama form the Chicago political corruption then failing to give GM credit for the many many things they have done right - is partisan indeed.

I trust from your reply that you have not driven a 2008 Malibu or CTS or Saturn Vue Green?

ETA: As far as dogs go - not sure if I am an EXPERT - but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 07:44:47.

02/02/2009 07:40:58 AM · #57

Originally posted by Flash:

Lots of mention of negatives without any balance on the positives. Pretty one sided.

Yes, it is.....but WHAT positives?????

Did you read any of what I posted????

Originally posted by Flash:

No mention of Corvettes standing in the world.

Flash, what earthly use is their one-off, money-losing, niche market car???? This isn't a car for any worthwhile or practical use......it's a glamour car of limited market appeal. This is NOT a grocery-getter/commuter car that Joe & Jane Public are going to have in their garage.

Yeah, it's pretty decent in its own segment, but it's not very relevant.

Do you really want to talk about the 'Vette from '73-'90? Their flagship, yet plagued by lackluster performance and the same quality control issues the rest of the line had.

This vehicle is not an example of what anyone actuially needs, so what's the big deal?

It's pretty commonly viewed as a midlife-crisis, compensation piece.

Sort of like Hummers.....

Originally posted by Flash:

The Malibu, CTS, or even the recently dismantled 3800 made by buick. The one that was renowned for its longevity - 20 years it was pruduced (1988-2008).

OH MY GOD!!!

Wow.....renowned for its longevity???????

That engine was one of the worst engines ever built, and yet they insisted on building it for FOUR decades, not two. It was originally developed as a rear wheel drive powerplant, and they ran so roughly and poorly, they almost put Buick under at various points.

Oh, and BTW......that engine's configuration started in 1984.....remember me talking about the second EFI debacle? Yeah.....THAT engine.

I remember one dealer where we had warranty issues so bad that in between two regular service rep visits we had four blocks and two cranks sitting there waiting for his authorization to scrap. The blocks were align bored incorrectly, and the cranks were actually not straight. NONE of these components had even ten thousand miles on them!

That's no kind of longevity to brag about.

Originally posted by Flash:

From your portrayal - one might conclude that because Chicago/Illinois politics are dirty, then any politician from their ranks must be dirty too.

Flash, you're going to draw whatever conclusion you want......you have made it abundantly clear that you don't let history, facts, or common sense get in your way.

Originally posted by Flash:

Hmmmm.......if you can excuse Obama form the Chicago political corruption then failing to give GM credit for the many many things they have done right - is partisan indeed.

PLEASE list some examples of these things you claim GM does right!

Listen, I TRIED!!!! I really did!

If you look back, you'll see I mentioned that I've owned TEN of their offerings......it's not like I didn't give them a chance.

When you own ten of something, and they have too many issues to tolerate, don't you think that'd be enough to make an assumption without even going into the fact that I worked on the cars?????

I sat in a specialized electronics course in GM training school and watched an instructor hold up and engine management computer and listened to him tell the class that it was the most sophisticated piece of automotive technology EVER and that we would most likely NEVER have to replace one. That was in 1980, I went back to the same course ONE YEAR later, and even the name of the course and its components had been changed. Five years after that, the GM ECMs that this guy was talking about were SOOOOOO bad, that every aftermarket parts store in the country had no less than a dozen of them on the shelf at a time.

Originally posted by Flash:

I trust from your reply that you have not driven a 2008 Malibu or CTS or Saturn Vue Green?

Nope.....not gonna, don't care.

Read this carefully.......

After 40 years of owning, driving, and working on them, I've learned my lesson, and I have no desire to subject myself, my family, and my bank account to the hassle.

Flash, if you actually knew anything about this stuff, maybe it'd be fun. What you don't seem to realize is that I actually LIKE GMs, and I spent a lot of time TRYING to live with them.

I have well over a half-million miles under my belt in the driver's seats of their cars.

You?

I couldn't take it any more.....they beat me down. It just wasn't worth it.

When I went to open my own shop, I had two choices of specialty markets.......as a British Sports car specialist, or as a musclecar restoration specialist.

The musclecar world would have been predominantly GMs, because they have the most and they are the most popular, and Lord knows....I would have had plenty of work.

But I went with the British cars simply because there was leagues less of the lowbrow, incompetent antics such as what the musclecar world comprises. It's a terrible field what with companies trying to cut each others' throats, quality, price, and demand issues, and the ego-driven knowledge bases were completely off the charts.

I worked on a few select cars for people I knew, but the bottom line on it was that any halfwit that could take a 396 out of a Biscayne wagon and stuff it into a Camaro was a musclecar expert, and I wasn't willing to deal with that.

There's a lot more to it than that.....brakes, suspension, wiring, chassis upgrades, an it really costs about three times what it's worth when you're done to do it right, so I took a pass and opened the British car shop......and never regretted it.

So go ahead and think what you want, you wll anyway, but it's that clueless marque blindness that you have; the complete unwillingness to look at what the company has done, and will do to you with no compunction, that GM counts on while they serve up another heapin' helping of......well, you get the idea.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 07:47:25.

02/02/2009 07:49:56 AM · #58

Originally posted by Flash:

ETA: As far as dogs go - not sure if I am an EXPERT - but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

That's where you and I differ.....I KNOW I'm not an expert......I just love animals and do my best to take care of them in my little corner of the world.

I'm not sure what your allusion to a motel has to do with anything related to dogs.

02/02/2009 07:51:20 AM · #59

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:
Lots of mention of negatives without any balance on the positives. Pretty one sided.

Yes, it is.....but WHAT positives?????

Did you read any of what I posted????

Originally posted by Flash:
No mention of Corvettes standing in the world.

Flash, what earthly use is their one-off, money-losing, niche market car???? This isn't a car for any worthwhile or practical use......it's a glamour car of limited market appeal. This is NOT a grocery-getter/commuter car that Joe & Jane Public are going to have in their garage.

Yeah, it's pretty decent in its own segment, but it's not very relevant.

Do you really want to talk about the 'Vette from '73-'90? Their flagship, yet plagued by lackluster performance and the same quality control issues the rest of the line had.

This vehicle is not an example of what anyone actuially needs, so what's the big deal?

It's pretty commonly viewed as a midlife-crisis, compensation piece.

Sort of like Hummers.....
Originally posted by Flash:
The Malibu, CTS, or even the recently dismantled 3800 made by buick. The one that was renowned for its longevity - 20 years it was pruduced (1988-2008).

OH MY GOD!!!

Wow.....renowned for its longevity???????

That engine was one of the worst engines ever built, and yet they insisted on building it for FOUR decades, not two. It was originally developed as a rear wheel drive powerplant, and they ran so roughly and poorly, they almost put Buick under at various points.

Oh, and BTW......that engine's configuration started in 1984.....remember me talking about the second EFI debacle? Yeah.....THAT engine.

I remember one dealer where we had warranty issues so bad that in between two regular service rep visits we had four blocks and two cranks sitting there waiting for his authorization to scrap. The blocks were align bored incorrectly, and the cranks were actually not straight. NONE of these components had even ten thousand miles on them!

That's no kind of longevity to brag about.
Originally posted by Flash:
From your portrayal - one might conclude that because Chicago/Illinois politics are dirty, then any politician from their ranks must be dirty too.

Flash, you're going to draw whatever conclusion you want......you have made it abundantly clear that you don't let history, facts, or common sense get in your way.
Originally posted by Flash:
Hmmmm.......if you can excuse Obama form the Chicago political corruption then failing to give GM credit for the many many things they have done right - is partisan indeed.

PLEASE list some examples of these things you claim GM does right!

Listen, I TRIED!!!! I really did!

If you look back, you'll see I mentioned that I've owned TEN of their offerings......it's not like I didn't give them a chance.

When you own ten of something, and they have too many issues to tolerate, don't you think that'd be enough to make an assumption without even going into the fact that I worked on the cars?????

I sat in a specialized electronics course in GM training school and watched an instructor hold up and engine management computer and listened to him tell the class that it was the most sophisticated piece of automotive technology EVER and that we would most likely NEVER have to replace one. That was in 1980, I went back to the same course ONE YEAR later, and even the name of the course and its components had been changed. Five years after that, the GM ECMs that this guy was talking about were SOOOOOO bad, that every aftermarket parts store in the country had no less than a dozen of them on the shelf at a time.
Originally posted by Flash:
I trust from your reply that you have not driven a 2008 Malibu or CTS or Saturn Vue Green?

Nope.....not gonna, don't care.

Read this carefully.......

After 40 years of owning, driving, and working on them, I've learned my lesson, and I have no desire to subject myself, my family, and my bank account to the hassle.

Flash, if you actually knew anything about this stuff, maybe it'd be fun. What you don't seem to realize is that I actually LIKE GMs, and I spent a lot of time TRYING to live with them.

I have well over a half-million miles under my belt in the driver's seats of their cars.

You?

I couldn't take it any more.....they beat me down. It just wasn't worth it.

When I went to open my own shop, I had two choices of specialty markets.......as a British Sports car specialist, or as a musclecar restoration specialist.

The musclecar world would have been predominantly GMs, because they have the most and they are the most popular, and Lord knows....I would have had plenty of work.

But I went with the British cars simply because there was leagues less of the lowbrow, incompetent antics such as what the musclecar world comprises. It's a terrible field what with companies trying to cut each others' throats, quality, price, and demand issues, and the ego-driven knowledge bases were completely off the charts.

I worked on a few select cars for people I knew, but the bottom line on it was that any halfwit that could take a 396 out of a Biscayne wagon and stuff it into a Camaro was a musclecar expert, and I wasn't willing to deal with that.

There's a lot more to it than that.....brakes, suspension, wiring, chassis upgrades, an it really costs about three times what it's worth when you're done to do it right, so I took a pass and opened the British car shop......and never regretted it.

So go ahead and think what you want, you wll anyway, but it's that clueless marque blindness that you have; the complete unwillingness to look at what the company has done, and will do to you with no compunction, that GM counts on while they serve up another heapin' helping of......well, you get the idea.

So I take it you don't like GM products. Jaguar used GM transmissions as did Land Rover and Rolls Royce. Must have been something good about them - given your preference for British makes/models.

02/02/2009 07:52:12 AM · #60

My apologies to those who have had to listen to the car drivel....

I like Obama, he gives me hope, but unlike an awful lot of people who are standing around waiting and hoping that he'll fall flat on his face, I hope his idealism and his inclination to want something good for the country works out.

02/02/2009 07:58:01 AM · #61

Originally posted by Flash:

So I take it you don't like GM products. Jaguar used GM transmissions as did Land Rover and Rolls Royce. Must have been something good about them - given your preference for British makes/models.

They also used Borg-Warner, and when they got th sh*ts of American transmission issues, ZF.

ETA: Jaguar NEVER used one of GM's transmissions in their mass offering.....they used the Borg-Warner.

So it's not like it was a mainstay or anthing.....They only used the THM400 behind the V-12, which was VERY limited production, and discontinued its usage in 1991, long after GM no longer used it in their passenger cars.

What do they use today?

NOT GM.

Because GM could not offer a reliable four speed automatic transmission.

You really don't see what you don't want to, do you?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What you don't seem to realize is that I actually LIKE GMs, and I spent a lot of time TRYING to live with them.

It utterly amazes me how you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 08:28:34.

02/02/2009 08:26:49 AM · #62

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:
So I take it you don't like GM products. Jaguar used GM transmissions as did Land Rover and Rolls Royce. Must have been something good about them - given your preference for British makes/models.

The also used Borg-Warner, and when they got th sh*ts of American transmission issues, ZF.

What do they use today?

NOT GM.

You really don't see what you don't want to, do you?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What you don't seem to realize is that I actually LIKE GMs, and I spent a lot of time TRYING to live with them.

It utterly amazes me how you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

The truth is that you are on a public site read by hundreds or even thousands calling GM products worthless. That public statement is not supported by the millions of vehicles they sell each year, the "Best in Class" awards they have received, the miriad of product designs they have or the wonderful vehicles that have come out of Detroit. Your irresponsible ramblings may further an already misguided reputation and damage an already fragile consumer base. This at a time when every vehicle sold is a life line for a couple million citizens/workers. Regardless of what you think I know or don't know and regardless of how much you think you know - GM's products are competitive in nearly every category today. The mass recalls of Toyota or their Super Bowl commercial promoting their BIG TRUCKS, gets a pass - while GM gets bashed. While you have the right to write whatever you please - I won't let you continue to degrade an American Mid-Western Company with this vitriol - without a balancing point of view.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/02/2009 08:34:30 AM · #63

Originally posted by Flash:

Flash, if you can come up with one iota of proof to the contrary of what I've said, go right ahead.

Call me names, tell me I'm irresponsible since you cannot refute what I say, but can you offer up ANY proof of my "Misguided, irresponsible ramblings"?

You're really not balancing out anything.....you have yet to counter anything I've said.....you just rave worse.

BTW......you DO realize who Toyota partners with in the automotive industry, don't you?

You really want to go there?

PLEASE support your stance with examples and facts instead of just ranting nonsense.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 08:38:49.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

02/02/2009 08:47:56 AM · #64

Just for the record, I just put my brother-in-law's GM product up for sale in front of my house. It has 220K original miles on it, same engine, transmission, body, etc. The only problem is the seat recliner is broken. It easily passed Maryland inspection. (Blazer for those who want to know.) I had a z28 camaro that had well over 200K when I sold it, 2 Olds that ran for well over 150K before I sold them.

I have owned really crappy Chryslers (Dodge included), crappy Fiats, A good Jeep and a so-so Jeep, crappy Renault, repeatedly recalled Fords... Right now, we have 4 vehicles: Monte Carlo, SS Cobalt, Impala, and Silverado F150. We'll stick with GM - never once had a problem with any of them.

02/02/2009 08:52:51 AM · #65

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Flash, if you can come up with one iota of proof to the contrary of what I've said, go right ahead.

PLEASE support your stance with examples and facts instead of just ranting nonsense.

You mean like the Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, Cadillac CTS and CTS-V, or the Corvette and the Z06. You mean the many models that get 30 mpg (like the HHR or even the Impala) and the fact that no other manufacturer has as many "Flex-fuel" vehicles on the road (several million at last count). The Buick Lucerne - a beautiful full size sedan gets 26mpg and can be well optioned and still sticker for 30K.

If Obama is the hope you are looking for, and this country is headed to getting back on track under his leadership, then supporting the manufacturing base is pretty darn important. As a mechanic, it reads to me that you made a fairly long living off the manufacturer you claim is incompetent. A living that provided for your family, supported your community through your taxes, and afforded you whatever it is you have. The same goes for thousands of other american workers dependent on manufacturing. I suspect Obama might encourage you to support them.

02/02/2009 09:05:31 AM · #66

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Flash, if you can come up with one iota of proof to the contrary of what I've said, go right ahead.

PLEASE support your stance with examples and facts instead of just ranting nonsense.

Originally posted by Flash:

Flash, you're quoting advertising rhetoric again, not reliability statistics.

And there you go again with your mdlife crisis car......compensatng????.....8>)

These are the kind of discussons I hear all the time.....blustering and flag-waving, yet patently refusing to deal with the shortcomings of an entire industry.

And just because a manufacturer floods the market doesn't make them the best.

Originally posted by Flash:

If Obama is the hope you are looking for, and this country is headed to getting back on track under his leadership, then supporting the manufacturing base is pretty darn important. As a mechanic, it reads to me that you made a fairly long living off the manufacturer you claim is incompetent. A living that provided for your family, supported your community through your taxes, and afforded you whatever it is you have. The same goes for thousands of other american workers dependent on manufacturing. I suspect Obama might encourage you to support them.

Flash, I'm tired of this hijack.....if you want to open another thread for the automotive industry, I'll happily join in, but then it'll get serious.

We can then discuss what this country has done to its own auto industry. There's a reason why Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Subaru all hae manufacturing plants in this countr.....and it certainly isn't because our cars are so much better that they weren't able to get a foothold.

But you better take a really good hard look at what happened over the last four decades and why Detroit is in such trouble.

It's irresponsible not to examine what you do for possible failings; you cannot grow and improve unless you do.

Detroit has serious issues with that.

They are building much better cars than they used to, but only because the've been forced to by competition.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 09:06:44.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/02/2009 09:13:10 AM · #67

Originally posted by dahkota:

Silverado F150.

That must be quite the vehicle!

Is that a Fordrolet? Or a Chevord???.....8>)

I'm glad that you like and have had good luck with your GMs....there are many that have.

But let me pose this to you.....call around with a weird electrical problem looking for an automotive electrical/electronics specialist.

Then ask yourself why you can find a dozen domestic car specialists, and why you'll call around for a long time before you find on that's good with Toyota/Honda/Nissan/Subaru car.....that's because they don't have monumental issues.

Look, you have to understand that I'm a car freak......and I've had cars from all over the globe. It is a deep abiding shame that I have for this country that has the people, the techology, and the money to build far and away the best cars on the planet.

We don't......and that's so wrong.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 09:15:43.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

02/02/2009 09:29:08 AM · #68

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Silverado F150.

That must be quite the vehicle!

Is that a Fordrolet? Or a Chevord???.....8>)

But let me pose this to you.....call around with a weird electrical problem looking for an automotive electrical/electronics specialist.

Then ask yourself why you can find a dozen domestic car specialists, and why you'll call around for a long time before you find on that's good with Toyota/Honda/Nissan/Subaru car.....that's because they don't have monumental issues.

We don't......and that's so wrong.

Sorry - I forgot an 0. It should have been a 1500. Slammed for a typo...

I would beg to differ with you with regard to toyota/honda/Nissan/Subaru quality, both my own experience and that of friends. Not being able to find someone to fix something has no relation to how often it needs to be fixed.

CNN opinion piece on the stimulus legislation

02/02/2009 09:56:13 AM · #69

02/02/2009 09:57:47 AM · #70

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

As for driving SUV's well, in most cities, it's not necessary but, being Canadian and having some pretty harsh winters (potholes included), there's often only that choice or, the choice and great cost of snow tires every winter (unless one is a handyman and able to change these tires yourself in the driveway each Fall and Spring :)). Even so, the fact that there will be 8 tires to each vehicle used on the road all year long begs the question of how we will dispose of all of these tires 10 years from now or, how we will recycle them??? You just don't see a lot of some of the smaller or hybrid cars on the roads up here in winter. Not that everyone needs an SUV or Ram but, the bottom line is that the SUVs are needed in certain instances and places and have their role. Now, Hummers are a different story! No one needs a Hummer. ;-)

Hmmm, we have a lot of cold and snow here in Michigan along with some of the worst road conditions in the states and there's no need for 4wd Trucks and SUV's. In fact, a great many of the slideoffs and rollovers that I see are people driving just such vehicles who equate 4wd with invincibility in snow and ice. As for the snow tires, they're not a necessity either, a good set of 4 season tires will do fine year round.

Yes, I agree....Michigan's winters are brutal.

I also agree that there are a lot of yo-yo's out there with 4wd vehicles who do, as you say, use them as though they are in tanks and therefore, create a lot of problems. However, for those of us who drive all day and long distances, driving responsibly and keeping in mind that they can't roll over cars stuck on the side LOL (as I've seen them try to do), an SUV can make the difference between a headache of a day, spinning wheels on hills and slowly but smoothly getting to where one has to be. Is it 100% necessary, no but, it can make a difference for those who have to travel a lot during their day. There's less usage of Advil and Tylenol or alcohol at the end of a bad winter's day! :)

As for the snow tires, well, call the government nuts but, at least one province in Canada (Quebec) has made it mandatory that everyone have snow tires on their cars. There's talk of other provinces, such as Ontario, also going to make it mandatory. So, while snow tires may be an option where you are, they are and may become a mandatory thing for a lot of us here. :) That question about what happens to all of the snow tires 10 years from now....really wasn't just a "what if" for us. :(

I drive 100+ miles/day here in Michigan and have for about the past 10 years. I have never owned an SUV, 4WD truck or other such wasteful vehicle. I have always driven small economical FWD cars. I've also never slid out, spun out or become stranded in the snow.

As for snow tires generating extra waste, consider that the 4 months you're driving on those snow tires, you're not driving on your regular tires.

02/02/2009 10:02:58 AM · #71

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

They are building much better cars than they used to

We can agree afterall.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/02/2009 10:32:25 AM · #72

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I have always driven small economical FWD cars. I've also never slid out, spun out or become stranded in the snow.

I've had a '75 Vega, '76 Monza, '77 Skyhawk, '78 Chevette, '80 Skylark, '84 Fiero, '88 Reatta. I've also had a '70 chev 1/2 ton, '71 Corvette LT1, '83 S10 2 dr Blazer 2wd 4 cyl 4sp, '85 Lesabre Collector's Edition, '86 S10 Blazer, 2 Olds Bravadas, a '99 Escalade, an '04 SRX, '06 H3, '07 GMC Envoy Denali and a 2009 CTS4 DI. I've driven Michigan winters for nearly 40 years with and without snow tires, 2wd, FWD, AWD and 4wd. The Fiero was worthless and the Corvette actually handled pretty good. The Reatta could hold its own and the SRX AWD was phenomenal (with factory treads). When any group or government entity tries to tell me what is best for me, then I don't take it too well. I have a 50mpg motorcycle, bicycles, canoes, backpacking gear and cross country skis. My overall carbon footprint is pretty small - comparatively. I freely give to the Red Cross and several setter rescue groups. HOPE (Hummer Owners Prepared for Emergencies) is a nationally recognized aid group and have helped hundreds of citizens in diasaster situations. Bashing a particular owner may be politically correct in some parts - but it doesn't further the cause. Having the right tool for the job makes the job immensely easier. I can open a bottle with a hammer or a rock, but a bottle opener is much better at the task.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/02/2009 10:50:25 AM · #73

Something that is odd is that almost none of the American car names are familiar - they only feed one market.

Japanese, French, Swedish, Italian, German and English cars seem to be exported fairly readily world-wide, but American cars as a general rule don't seem to travel. Even most Ford cars are divided into Ford US and Ford Europe.

02/02/2009 11:18:12 AM · #74

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have always driven small economical FWD cars. I've also never slid out, spun out or become stranded in the snow.

I've had a '75 Vega, '76 Monza, '77 Skyhawk, '78 Chevette, '80 Skylark, '84 Fiero, '88 Reatta. I've also had a '70 chev 1/2 ton, '71 Corvette LT1, '83 S10 2 dr Blazer 2wd 4 cyl 4sp, '85 Lesabre Collector's Edition, '86 S10 Blazer, 2 Olds Bravadas, a '99 Escalade, an '04 SRX, '06 H3, '07 GMC Envoy Denali and a 2009 CTS4 DI. I've driven Michigan winters for nearly 40 years with and without snow tires, 2wd, FWD, AWD and 4wd. The Fiero was worthless and the Corvette actually handled pretty good. The Reatta could hold its own and the SRX AWD was phenomenal (with factory treads). When any group or government entity tries to tell me what is best for me, then I don't take it too well. I have a 50mpg motorcycle, bicycles, canoes, backpacking gear and cross country skis. My overall carbon footprint is pretty small - comparatively. I freely give to the Red Cross and several setter rescue groups. HOPE (Hummer Owners Prepared for Emergencies) is a nationally recognized aid group and have helped hundreds of citizens in diasaster situations. Bashing a particular owner may be politically correct in some parts - but it doesn't further the cause. Having the right tool for the job makes the job immensely easier. I can open a bottle with a hammer or a rock, but a bottle opener is much better at the task.

Exactly.

Do you reserve your Hummer for disaster relief then?

The government restricts ownership of all sorts of things for the good of society at large. Things like machine guns, RPG's, hand grenades, explosives, ATW's, ammonium nitrate, toxic waste, gasoline, heroin, meth, crack, the list goes on and on. Why aren't you carrying on about how the government is infringing on your right to own heroin or your own 105mm howitzer?