Hehehe, yup. They were garbage. so was the Honda 600. Read this and chuckle:
------------- The Honda 600 sedan (N600) and coupe (Z600) are small cars - just over
10 feet long, and weighing about 1300 pounds. Although not overpowered by any means with a two cylinder motorcycle engine with 36 cubic inches and 36 horsepower, they were actually fairly sophisticated and powerful compared with the other micro cars of the time. Some of the features that differentiated the Honda 600 were front power disc brakes, 4 speed all synchro transmission, a tachometer (coupe only), and a surprisingly spacious interior with reasonably comfortable seats. All this is true when compared with Subaru 360, Fiat 500 or 600 features. Compared with the typical US car of the time, the 600 is a tiny, cramped, underpowered car.
-------------- I actually drove one of these. What a hoot.
Hundais are actually very well-built cars these days. The styling isn't great, but word has it that they are very reliable.
The sterling used the Honda Legend engine but was built by the Rover Group in Britain. It had all the electrical, material and assembly problems common for British cars of that time.
True, but even so, why should the government be cosigning loans for private businesses which are such poor credit risks that they can't otherwise qualify for those loans? Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would have gone bankrupt. Perhaps that would have prompted GM and Ford to realize that they could or would be next if they didn't change their ways, and start building what America buys.
SWMBO and I saw that high-pressure stuff last time we were shopping for a car... with flat-out lies on top of it. Told the salespeople at every dealership we visited that we were looking for a used car, a few years old, small to medium size, and fuel-efficient (specifically, 30+ mpg on the highway). One guy tried his damnedest to sell us a 1992 Cadillac DeVille. Claimed it would get 32mpg. Yeah, riiiiight.
Those were *nice* cars. SWMBO and I were quite impressed, and seriously considering buying one, until we started talking price with the dealer. Waaaaay overpriced IMO, and no willingness to bargain.
I owned one of those. Lots of power, zippy, fun to drive, had all the amenities. Great luxury touring car. Biggest piece of crap I've ever owned. I think I drove the dealership courtesy car as much as I was driving the Sterling during its warranty period. Good news was it was a
3/36 warranty, so the first several years were reasonably low-cost although they did figure out ways to extort several hundred $ here, several hundred $ there, under the "that's normal wear and tear" mantra. I literally had a
2 inch thick stack of service orders during the service life of that car.
The Acura parts of the car performed well, engine and power train gave few problems. The carriage work was a nightmare; parts worked loose inside and outside the car. Should have known that this was going to be a problem auto just from the fact that the hood release was still on the right side of the car -- that just speaks to sloppy engineering at Austin Rover not catching that and actually putting it into production that way.
In addition to the shoddy workmanship, there were other just plain stupid design flaws. The windshield washer pipes were attached to the hood, so that every time the hood was opened and closed, there was a bending stress on the hoses -- yep, they failed at about 3 years. The radio was an absolute piece of crap -- we lived in Dallas at the time (not exactly a backwater market), yet the search function could only find 2 or 3 of the area radio stations. The dashboard went out 2 or 3 times (I lost count).
Didn't matter what I did, there was always at least one thing broken on that car. After getting it fixed, within a couple of weeks it was either something else or one of the old failures that came back.
Yeah, it was a POS and there is a good reason it didn't last long in the US market. Given the price of the car, I also took a bath trading it in when it was only 5 years old, but at that point I didn't care and I certainly wasn't going to try selling it to somebody.
One thing for certain, it's going to be a very cold day in Tucson before I ever even think about another British vehicle.
They're either expanding production or building entirely new -- they're not removing current production for two years while doing so. If you can't see a disadvantage, you're not looking.
Even if so, it doesn't eliminate any of the contamination issues, etc., that don't go away on re-permitting. And, of course, it doesn't address the issue of disposal of the present facility, much of which may qualify as hazardous waste as well. Such costs are potentially deal-breakers and are the reason many industrial sites are abandoned currently.
It's certainly not nearly the economic "advantage" you would like to make it seem.
I once bought a brand new 1963 MGB. A good friend (an Austin owner) told me that I must torque/tighten every bolt and screw on that car if I was interested in longevity. I did and put 125000 major problem-free miles on it. Traded it in on a 1970 Fiat 124 Sport Coupe. Major mistake. oh well, jo4hn
I thought Chrysler had trouble getting loans. It was the government acting as a 'co-signer' that made the difference. The loan itself was private money.
Untied Airlines is another story entirely. It sure looks like the company was deliberately run into bankruptcy as a ploy to dump their pensioners off onto the taxpayers. Now as a consequence of years of mismanagement, United Airlines has a big advantage over the others who still support their pensioners.
Had UAL been dissolved, its current employees would have mostly been able to hire into the better managed airlines that would be expanding to pick up UAL's old business.
The problem with corporate pensions plans since the 1970's have been mis, non, or malfeasance on the part of management coupled with de (or non) regulation, allowing corporations to underfund them or even declare and take back 'surpluses' when they were really running at a deficit by any honest accounting practice.
A defined benefit package is fine, but only WITH the appropriate planning.
Because at no cost (in fact at a profit) to the tax payer it preserved a
100,000+ good paying jobs....At the time Chrysler had a very short term temporary problem.
Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would
That is just plain silly......GM and Ford have sold a lot of cars, obviously more than anybody else world wide in the years following the loan......From parts to chassi they have to compete world wide with much lower wages(often at rates well below a living wage here)...in fact even quality issues are impacted as one can afford fewer hours on quality control and/or detail.....Incidently GM sells more cars in China than anyone else (built in China).....Rod
:> True, but even so, why should the government be cosigning loans for :> private :> businesses which are such poor credit risks that they can't otherwise :> qualify :> for those loans?
: Because at no cost (in fact at a profit) to the tax payer it preserved a : 100,000+ good paying jobs....At the time Chrysler had a very short term : temporary problem.
: Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would :> have gone bankrupt. Perhaps that would have prompted GM and Ford to :> realize :> that they could or would be next if they didn't change their ways, and :> start :> building what America buys. :> Regards, :> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
: That is just plain silly......GM and Ford have sold a lot of cars, obviously : more than anybody else world wide in the years following the loan......From : parts to chassi they have to compete world wide with much lower wages(often : at rates well below a living wage here)...in fact even quality issues are : impacted as one can afford fewer hours on quality control and/or : detail.....Incidently GM sells more cars in China than anyone else (built in : China).....Rod
But thirty years after the loan, they still don't build cars that are anywhere as good as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan do.
"Leon" wrote in news:4lPmj.742$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
I bought a Toyota Avalon last year. I live out in the sticks and the closest Toyota Dealer is 45 miles away. I used the internet to shop dealers within 100 miles of where I live. I found that Toyota dealers are no different than any other dealers. Some are great, others so-so and some just suck. I was working with one in Newburgh NY (85 miles away). They quoted me a price for a Blizzard Pearl Avalon XLS and asked me to come on down so they could evaluate my trade in. I told them I didn't know if I was going to trade a car or not and was only interested in the price of the Avalon. I agreed to visit them, but I also made arrangements to visit other Toyota dealerships along the way. When I got to Newburgh and intoduced myself to the salesman that I had been dealing with and he asked me to leave the keys to my car on his desk so they could evaluate my car as a trade in. He then told me me that the Avalon we had been dicussing had been sold the previous afternoon and, since it had been his day off, he didn't find out in time to call me. Damn, I felt so unlucky. Fortunately he said he would be able to get another, but he didn't think the salesmanager would approve it at the same price since sales incentives had changed two days prior. Again my bad luck. He asked how much I could afford per month for a new Toyota. I answered him with "as much as required". He said "No, I mean what monthly payments can you handle". Again I said "whatever they are". He then said "I need a dollar figure so I can work with you". I said "give me a price on the car and if I like it I will buy it from you". I'm not sure if the twit thought I meant the car or the price. At this point the sales manager walked into the office. He explained that that the monthly payment I could afford would assist them in providing with the absolutely best deal I could ever hope to find. I again said "I can afford whatever the monthly payment is". I remarked to the them that it seemed that I was being double teamed. Being the ignorant type that I am, I felt reassured when they stated they had only what was best for me in mind. My fears now allayed, we started to negotiate the price of the car. I was sitting in the salesman's cubicle and looking out at the parking lot and noticed my car was in the exact same spot I left it. The salesman then told after evaluating my car as a trade in they could only offer me xxxx since they found so many things it needed. My bad luck again. I then asked them for a price on a Toyota Avalon XLS in blizzard white. They again responded with "how much can you afford per month so we can structure a loan to meet your needs". I was now getting a little tired of the games we were playing and had an appointment at another dealer across the river (in Wappingers). I then told them I would like a 1 month note and would make one payment and that was all I could afford. I also mentioned that I noticed my car hadn't been moved and their diagnosis of its difficiencies was truly wondrous. They assured me I was mistakened. Toyota dealers are 'CAR DEALERS'. Some are great and some suck; just like dealers of all other brand. I ended up getting a great deal (in my mind) from the dealer in Wappingers. (2006 Toyota Avalon XLS)
Sounds exactly like the dealership I will no longer even glance at when I drive by. I certainly agree it's not the brand being sold but the weasels selling it that make the difference. As I said, the other dealer was a dream to deal with as you found with the dealer with whom you ultimately did business. Actually, that was my point, a lot of the issue is with the dealer in terms of the dealing. The quality of the vehicle is a function of the manufacturer (or at least highly correlated, everybody has their hangar queens, just some more than others). OTOH, the dealer that had the great sales office had a bunch of weasels in the service department; my trust level was severely lowered on several occasions to the point I started using independent service (less expensive in the long run anyway).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.