|
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
|
déjà vu all over again
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:48:43 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" The
fastest and most accurate Gun in the World wrote: It seemed that they would always pick the product with the worst quality. ================================== Examples please. I've found their car recommendations to be right on the mark, audio equipment less so. |
déjà vu all over again
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Lord Reginald Smithers" The fastest and most accurate Gun in the World wrote in message ... Doug, CR is a well intentioned group of individuals who don't seem to have a clue. The don't review boats, but they seem to miss the mark on all other products. It seemed that they would always pick the product with the worst quality. For some products, they really are off base. Stereo equipment's a good example. When I was in that biz back in the late 70s & 1980s, they'd always recommend Japanese speakers, which sounded horrible. And, Sanyo car stereos, which were an absolute joke at the time. With cars, though, I think they're between a rock and a hard place. Some people like to slam their reliability surveys because they primarily cover very young cars. But, how long does the average buyer keep a car? Is it that easy to find a large sample of people whose cars have reached 100,000 miles? For things like appliances, I don't think it's possible to do any better. But, the magazine *does* educate some readers about features they might not have otherwise considered. This is important because considering the low quality of most retail staff, you might never hear about these features in the stores. Exactly. It ain't perfect, but I have yet to hear anyone come up with constructive suggestions. I've never been disappointed following a CR 'best buy' recommendation. The information it provides just on what to look for is worth the price. The latest issue has a nice article on VOIP telephones. My neighbor has been trying to talk me into one, and the article gave me some good food for thought. -- John Herring Hope your Christmas is Spectacular, and your New Year even Better! |
déjà vu all over again
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:56:08 GMT, "FREDO" wrote:
I had a 94 F-150 XLT Lariat best pulling truck I ever had in 4X4 (locking front and rear differentials). But man it was not reliable! In 36,000 miles and 1 year it had the following repairs: brake pads and rotors replaced 4 times (rotors kept warping) fan clutch replaced 2 times HVAC repaired 3 times they finally found the orifice was missing from the system, the darn thing would only blow cold air while traveling on the interstate, any time you went to in town traffic mode it blew hot air. Radio quit 2 times. So I traded it on my 96 Subaru Outback and so far it has never been in for any repairs. My 00 GMC has had the transfer case replaced, the steering gearbox replaced and the P/S pump replaced (all under warranty) since then it has been a truly reliable vehicle. I wish you well with your Ford quality issues. "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... To those that read my "trip to hell" back in November where I spend 5 days in a hotel room in Georgia while they fixed my super duty Ford 350 ..... I just got back from my final trip to Florida - picked up the Scout (another story) and started the trip back to MA. Got to Norfork and visited Eisboch Jr. and his very pregnant wife, then headed north towing the Scout. Got as far as Fredricksburg, VA and the new, heavy duty diesel Ford 350 died again. After all kinds of debates and decisions, I ended up hiring the tow company to transport the dead Ford, with a 20' Scout in tow, all the way from VA to MA. We dropped off the boat in my driveway, then continued to Plymouth, MA and dropped off the dead Ford in the dealer's lot. Gonna be a bit of excitement down there on Monday when they open. Eisboch (back from the last trip to hell) FORD - Found On Road Dead I can't wait for Toyota to start making something comparable to the 350 - and then it's bye bye American brands. On my '95 Sierra, I've had to replace the muffler (with dual exhaust and decent sound from Midas), the hose to the heater, one door handle, and the dash mounted drink holder. It's got 113,000 miles on it. BUT, today I had to take it in for a new clutch. I figure it's good for another 100,000. -- John Herring Hope your Christmas is Spectacular, and your New Year even Better! |
déjà vu all over again
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:26:26 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:56:08 GMT, "FREDO" wrote: I had a 94 F-150 XLT Lariat best pulling truck I ever had in 4X4 (locking front and rear differentials). But man it was not reliable! In 36,000 miles and 1 year it had the following repairs: brake pads and rotors replaced 4 times (rotors kept warping) fan clutch replaced 2 times HVAC repaired 3 times they finally found the orifice was missing from the system, the darn thing would only blow cold air while traveling on the interstate, any time you went to in town traffic mode it blew hot air. Radio quit 2 times. Horse feathers. I don't believe it. So I traded it on my 96 Subaru Outback and so far it has never been in for any repairs. My 00 GMC has had the transfer case replaced, the steering gearbox replaced and the P/S pump replaced (all under warranty) since then it has been a truly reliable vehicle. I wish you well with your Ford quality issues. I have a 2000 F-250 Super Duty 4X4, 7.3 liter diesel and the only thing I've had go wrong with it was a stuck caliber when I first bought it. 100,000 miles and it's just getting broken in. 17 mpg around town and 22/23 on the highway. Best big pickup I've ever owned. Which have all been Fords. All of which were traded with no problems at all during the time I owned them. What's one of those guys sell for? I paid $19,700 for mine, but I get only 17mpg on the highway. -- John Herring Hope your Christmas is Spectacular, and your New Year even Better! |
déjà vu all over again
"John H." wrote in message ... I've never been disappointed following a CR 'best buy' recommendation. The information it provides just on what to look for is worth the price. The latest issue has a nice article on VOIP telephones. My neighbor has been trying to talk me into one, and the article gave me some good food for thought. -- John Herring I'd like to see them evaluate voice quality for cell phones. By this, I mean the quality of the microphone, earpiece, and the execution of the background noise cancelling scheme. These are all purely hardware issues. Some cell phones absolutely suck. |
déjà vu all over again
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... It's impossible to know why they haven't made such a truck. But, if I had to take a guess, I'd say they think they cannot overcome the cultural inertia that's still present in buyers for that type of vehicle. It may be a concern that doing so would affect their good gas mileage reputation. A full sized truck of 10,000 lb GVW or more with 4 wheel drive just ain't gonna get good gas mileage, no matter how advanced the design of the engine. Gasoline has about 130,000 btu's of energy, diesel about 10,000 btu's more. Converting that energy to do work isn't magic. Eisboch |
déjà vu all over again
"RG" wrote in message news:zGhnf.10841$fz5.5088@dukeread04... You sort of have to take what you read on the internet automotive forums with a grain of salt. The number of people who take the time to praise their vehicles on these forums is quite small when compared to the people who are more than happy to take the time to bitch about whatever problems they've had. In other words, it's hardly an unbiased sampling. I'm very sorry to hear about the problems with your truck, Richard. I owned a 2000 7.3 F250 SuperDuty which was not a daily driver, but more of a tow vehicle for the boat and weekend driver. In 5 years, I only put 50,000 miles on it, but they were all trouble-free. In December 2004, I traded it for a 2005 model of the same truck with the 6.0 liter PowerStroke. Again, only about 10,000 miles since the trade, but they have all been trouble free. In fact, the only work that's been done to it are oil and filter changes. As much as I liked the 7.3, the 6.0 liter is so much more refined, as is the 2005 truck over the 2000 model (both Lariats). The 6.0 liter behaves completely different than the 7.3. It doesn't have near the low rpm grunt as the 7.3, but get it above 1500 rpm and it's all there and then it winds almost like a gasser. As a highway cruiser, the 6.0 is far superior. Much quieter and a better powerband than the 7.3. As a stump puller, hard to beat the 7.3. Much improved suspension on the 2005 model, as well as a much tighter turning radius for the 4X4's. Point being, in spite of your troubles, it might be premature to second-guess your purchase decision. It was a smart move having the truck towed to the selling dealer. It sounds like they will do whatever it takes to make things right and put your bad luck behind you. If you haven't found this place already, here's what I consider the best of the Ford Truck forums: http://forums.thedieselstop.com/ubbthreads/ And to a lesser extent: http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/index.php Good advice. I am going to see how this repair works out because otherwise I like the truck very much. I agree with all you said - mine's a 350 - little stiffer springs but still yields a nice ride. It was interesting that the salesman wanted to find the build date because I've heard "rumors" that there was a major flaw in the engine design that was corrected after a certain date. Thanks, Eisboch |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "FREDO" wrote in message .. . Subaru's are designed to crumple in order to absorb impact. Also, they are designed to push the engine and transmission downward under the passenger compartment in a frontal crash via a "Pitching Stopper" to lessen the possibility of the engine coming into the passenger compartment. They consistently receive 5 star ratings from the U.S. government in crash testing. Saw that happen back in the 1970s with an Eldorado. The engine vacated its compartment completely, and crushed & burned the driver. Not pretty. Reminds me of a recall on GM cars back in the late 60's or early 70's. Seems a whole bunch of Chevys, Buicks, Olds, etc. were shipped with faulty engine mounts that, when they failed, would allow the engine to drop between the frame and hit the ground. The fix was, believe it or not, a steel cable around one of the exhaust manifolds with the other end bolted somewhere in the engine compartment. The mounts still failed, but the engine oil pan would not hit the pavement. Eisboch |
déjà vu all over again
Good advice. I am going to see how this repair works out because otherwise I like the truck very much. I agree with all you said - mine's a 350 - little stiffer springs but still yields a nice ride. It was interesting that the salesman wanted to find the build date because I've heard "rumors" that there was a major flaw in the engine design that was corrected after a certain date. I believe the 6.0 came out in the 2003 model year, and for a while you could purchase an '03 with either the 7.3 or the 6.0. The early 6.0's were indeed fraught with problems, but as I understand it, most of those issues were worked out by the 2004 model year, and by the 2005 model year, things were essentially as good as the 7.3 ever was, at least in terms of reliability. The approximate build date of your truck is printed on a sticker on the trailing edge of the driver's door, in the format mm/yy. The exact build date of your engine can be read on the sticker on the Fuel Injection Control Module in the format dd/mm/yy. The label on the FICM is difficult to read, but doable. You'll find the FICM on the driver's side of the engine near the firewall under the coolant recovery tank. My engine has a build date of October 22, 2004 and a the sticker on the door reads 10/04. Here's what the FICM looks like: http://dan.prxy.org/Truck/6L_bible_h.../Page_010.html I'd be interested to hear what the current diagnosis is, as well as the dealer's remedy. |
déjà vu all over again
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... To those that read my "trip to hell" back in November where I spend 5 days in a hotel room in Georgia while they fixed my super duty Ford 350 ..... I just got back from my final trip to Florida - picked up the Scout (another story) and started the trip back to MA. Got to Norfork and visited Eisboch Jr. and his very pregnant wife, then headed north towing the Scout. Got as far as Fredricksburg, VA and the new, heavy duty diesel Ford 350 died again. After all kinds of debates and decisions, I ended up hiring the tow company to transport the dead Ford, with a 20' Scout in tow, all the way from VA to MA. We dropped off the boat in my driveway, then continued to Plymouth, MA and dropped off the dead Ford in the dealer's lot. Gonna be a bit of excitement down there on Monday when they open. Eisboch (back from the last trip to hell) FORD - Found On Road Dead FORD = First On Race Day It's silly to point to situations where cars are maintained by expert mechanics and constantly tweaked. Lyle's '68 Stang never lost in the local 1/4 mile on Route 1. |
déjà vu all over again
Skipper wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the vehicles. They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review. -- Skipper Dave, I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one? Dan |
déjà vu all over again
Harry Krause wrote:
Oh, I like Ford trucks. I had a SplashTruck and an F150, and both gave me top-notch service with no problems. But even at the top end, the fit and finish is not top end, and for some reason, Ford uses the worst paint available on the market in terms of durability and thinness of coat. I just don't have a need now for a full-sized pickup. What do you use to dunk the Parker? Dan |
déjà vu all over again
Harry Krause wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote: Skipper wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the vehicles. They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review. -- Skipper Dave, I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one? Dan The last time he flicked off the mechanical safety on his S&W double-action wheelgun. Boar, boat. Quick typing, sorry! Dan |
déjà vu all over again
Harry Krause wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Oh, I like Ford trucks. I had a SplashTruck and an F150, and both gave me top-notch service with no problems. But even at the top end, the fit and finish is not top end, and for some reason, Ford uses the worst paint available on the market in terms of durability and thinness of coat. I just don't have a need now for a full-sized pickup. What do you use to dunk the Parker? Dan Usually, a disreputable old pick-me-up truck, but sometimes an SUV. If I keep the boat, next season I am thinking of putting her on a lift. Maybe. Didn't you post a picture of a Tundra a while back? I think it was a dark green color. Not yours? Which SUV do you have? I've had two Jeeps, an MDX made in ONTARIO (another thread),and currently an X5 with the V8. I'm undecided about the next one...Yukon Denali, another X5, Escalade, etc. Dan |
déjà vu all over again
What kind of mileage did you get with that engine? When it was running that is. :) I've found that my mileage with both my '00 7.3 and my '05 remarkably consistent. Which is to say a lot less than some of the amazing claims I've read from others (including you). Which isn't to say that their claims are in anyway inaccurate or not to be believed, but rather that driving style, as with most vehicles has very much to do with the final results. In my case, I've had an incurable affliction with my right foot, that first manifested itself as a teenager and is with me to this day at 51 years of age. I prefer to leave stop lights smartly and quickly put distance between myself and the rest of traffic, assuming I've earned a position at the front of the grid. On the highway, typical cruising speed is 75-80, and I don't waste any time getting there. No one ever quotes the drag coefficient of these trucks, but it must something akin to an old Norge. Which reminds me that the air conditioning is on nearly year-round in my parts. Given this, running empty at 7200 pounds a bad tank would yield mid 14's (rare) and a good one would yield about 17 mpg (also rare). 15-16 is the norm. Like I said, pretty much the same results with both trucks. I absolutely believe the quality of the fuel varies from tank to tank and is responsible for most of the fluctuation in mileage between tanks. With the 7.3 towing a 14k pound boat and trailer 65-70 mph I'd get about 8.5 mpg. Haven't really towed the boat with the 6.0 yet. Sounds really crummy till you realize that it's a 50% improvement over the 7.4 liter Suburban I previously owned running empty or only towing a 10k pound boat and trailer. No complaints from me. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
|
déjà vu all over again
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:26:49 -0700, "RG" wrote: That's about right, but my overall average is 17 around town and when I came back from Wisconsin hauling the Halman Nordic 20, I got around 16/17 highway where I normally get about 20/23. I'm not hauling 14K pounds either. (are you sure it's 14,000 pounds - 7 tons?) Actually 14,040 pounds weighed on a certified scale, including 720 pounds of tongue weight. Boat and trailer, light on fuel. CGVW 21,240 pounds. I can email you a picture of the rig if you give me an address. Tri-axle trailer tracks true and tows like a dream. Gotta leave plenty of room to stop, though, even with surge brakes on all three axels. I once developed a hydraulic leak in one of the brake line fittings on the trailer and lost most of the fluid out of the master cylinder. This on an urban freeway. The only real white knuckle experience I've ever had while towing. To this day I carry a full bottle of brake fluid behind the rear seat of the truck. Never had to use it since then, which is just fine by me. I agree with you on the fuel, but I normally tank up at a local truck stop that has plenty of fresh fuel and if I stick with that fueling station, my mileage seems to increase. I do use additives to help with the C-tane rating and I can adjust the computer remotely if I need the extra HP or not which also helps the gas mileage. No mods of any kind on either of my trucks. Bone stock. Should have mentioned auto trans as well. The 05 doesn't even have 10k on it, so its mileage could still improve some, I suppose, but not counting on it. The only thing I dislike about the 6.0 versus the 7.3 is a bit of turbo lag right off the line that was never there in the 7.3. Other than that, I couldn't be happier about the trade. But once the tach is north of 1200, the 6.0 simply runs away from the 7.3, and in a much more civilized fashion. My '00 only had 50k on it, and was in pristene condition, so I got treated exceptionally well as a trade-in. Most five-year old diesel pickups are usually work trucks that have been beaten up pretty badly and are typically high mileage. Mine would have been a rare find for someone shopping for a nice used one. If it wasn't for the section 179 write-off on the new one, I'd probably still be driving the old one. In this climate, fuel can contain as much as 25% kerosene in the winter which can also affect hp and mileage. I do know that my mileage decreases in the winter significantly - the around town mileage averages around 13/14 during the coldest periods and the highway drops to 17/19 depending. I have just under 100K on the 7.3 liter engine and nary a problem or burp. I really can't complain - it's been a good, solid, efficient truck. Mine was too, for the most part. I replaced a water pump, and that was it for the engine. I did lose the torque converter though. Actually it was just the device that controls the lockup of the converter. Damn thing wouldn't unlock intermittently. The net effect was like having a manual transmission without the benefit of a clutch. Which is real fun when pulling up to a stop light. Especially when it did it the very first time. Truly a WTF moment. Without benefit of a clutch, you either slip it into neutral early or let it stall by standing on the brake. And the 7.3 isn't exactly the easiest engine to stall. It really likes to keep running. And there was no warning when it would not disengage. You wouldn't know until the moment of truth when coming to a stop. I had to drive it like that for several weeks until the problem got bad enough to where I could get it to lock up reliably so I could demonstrate it to the dealer. The stupid service writer damn near rear ended a Taurus in the service drive even after I demonstrated the full nature of the problem and the extreme importance of implementing one of the previously mentioned workarounds. Torque converter replaced at 30k under warranty, which out of sheer luck was just the time I would have otherwise had to pay to have the trans fluid replaced as normal maintenance. |
déjà vu all over again
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:24:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: What kind of mileage did you get with that engine? When it was running that is. :) I've never manually calculated mileage to date, but based on the truck computer readings, mileage is roughly as follows: Highway driving, up to 65 mph, unloaded and not towing: 18-19 mpg. Highway driving 65-75 mph, unloaded and not towing: 17-18 mpg. General around town driving: 16 mpg Highway towing 5000 lbs: 15-15.5 mpg. Highway towing - 12,500 lbs. (Fifth wheel) 10.8-11.3 mpg. I don't have a heavy foot and rarely "tromp on it". I've noticed that since winter arrived the mileage has dropped by 1 or 2 mpg. I understand that this is due to the winter blend of diesel fuel used around here that contains anti-gelling additives and also lowers the amount of btu's in the fuel. The technicians that worked on the truck last month in Georgia told me that the 6.0L can put out another 100 horsepower with a performance chip. I'll never bother with it since when it runs it has all the power I need. Eisboch |
déjà vu all over again
Tom,
I read and lost the post where you said you used the Lucas Oil Stabilizer, and found it to be a great additive. 15 yrs ago I used to use Slick 50, and thought I got better gas mileage and Slick 50 said it protected better than regular oil. Unfortunately, it also clogged up engine. You are obviously smarter than the average person. You obviously are very mechanically inclined. Didn't that report make you wonder if the additive was protecting the engine and components when the engine was running at high RPM? "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:55:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:24:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: What kind of mileage did you get with that engine? When it was running that is. :) I've never manually calculated mileage to date, but based on the truck computer readings, mileage is roughly as follows: Highway driving, up to 65 mph, unloaded and not towing: 18-19 mpg. Highway driving 65-75 mph, unloaded and not towing: 17-18 mpg. I don't think I've ever driven the truck at 65 mph on the highway. It's mostly around 55 to 60. Not that I can't, I just don't like to. General around town driving: 16 mpg That's the area where I have some complaints about the 7.3. I average around the same, but that's an average. It can be less than that. Highway towing 5000 lbs: 15-15.5 mpg. Highway towing - 12,500 lbs. (Fifth wheel) 10.8-11.3 mpg Ah - I don't have a 5th wheel and I don"t own a boat/trailer combination with that kind of weight. Maybe the Halman, but I figured that at 3,800 all told. I don't have a heavy foot and rarely "tromp on it". My kids won't drive with me because I take my time getting where I need to go. I have a '92 Escort that I bought for gas price reasons for just around town and I don't think that car has EVER gone over 50 mph - I literally bought it from the proverbial little old lady who only drove it to the grocery store and church. :) I've noticed that since winter arrived the mileage has dropped by 1 or 2 mpg. I understand that this is due to the winter blend of diesel fuel used around here that contains anti-gelling additives and also lowers the amount of btu's in the fuel. Kerosene. The technicians that worked on the truck last month in Georgia told me that the 6.0L can put out another 100 horsepower with a performance chip. I'll never bother with it since when it runs it has all the power I need. I have the whole Edge package sans the GPS, but with the backup camera. I also changed the waste gate controller and I now use the FRAM Air Hog filters. http://tinyurl.com/7qbfz I'm telling you - this is quite an improvement over normal performance. Later, Tom |
déjà vu all over again
"Dan Krueger" wrote in message ink.net... Skipper wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the vehicles. They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review. -- Skipper Dave, I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one? Dan Scupper's been mixing gin with his prescription meds again. |
déjà vu all over again
"Dan Krueger" wrote in message nk.net... Harry Krause wrote: Dan Krueger wrote: Skipper wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the vehicles. They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review. -- Skipper Dave, I can't remember a boar report in CR. When did you see the last one? Dan The last time he flicked off the mechanical safety on his S&W double-action wheelgun. Boar, boat. Quick typing, sorry! Dan Did you say you had a recipe for wild boar? |
déjà vu all over again
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:03:09 -0700, "RG" wrote: Actually 14,040 pounds weighed on a certified scale, including 720 pounds of tongue weight. Boat and trailer, light on fuel. CGVW 21,240 pounds. I can email you a picture of the rig if you give me an address. Not necessary - I believe you based on the description. Oh, I wasn't thinking that. It's just that it's such a cool looking rig. The boat really dwarfs the truck. Not easy to do with these big trucks. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
wrote in message oups.com... Wayne.B wrote: On 12 Dec 2005 07:09:33 -0800, wrote: My little V40 contiues to scoot along without a hitch or hiccup. I'm not sure what we'll replace her Subaru with, but it would be a Volvo XC70 if we found the right deal on the right car and it's unlikely to be another Subaru unless they have done something about front seat comfort in the last few years. ====================================== I've never owned a Volvo but have rented a few and always found the front seats to be among the most comfortable I've ever seen. Unfortunately their self perpetuated reputation for reliability doesn't seem to stand up under scrutiny however. With a Volvo, you put up with a lot of minor nuisances (many are electrical in nature), but with proper maintenance and a little luck it's possible to get huge longevity from the basic power train. The Japanese cars, in general, are a little more reliable than a Volvo- but are less likely to do 200-300k without an engine overhaul (as Volvos often do), and less sturdy in a catastrophic accident. I dunno about that Japanese engine thing, Chuck. I had a 1982 Tercel. At 160k or 180k miles or so, my mechanic thought it would be interesting to check compression. The numbers were perfectly even and within spec across all 4 cylinders. He thought his measuring thing was screwed up, so he tried another. Same results. No nasty engine problems of any other sort, either. No ooze around gaskets, nothing. Unfortunately, some drunk a-hole decided to total the car, so I never found out how far it could go. I suspect that if the motor was going to need a total overhaul, it would've shown SOME signs of age by that point. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "FREDO" wrote in message .. . Subaru's are designed to crumple in order to absorb impact. Also, they are designed to push the engine and transmission downward under the passenger compartment in a frontal crash via a "Pitching Stopper" to lessen the possibility of the engine coming into the passenger compartment. They consistently receive 5 star ratings from the U.S. government in crash testing. Saw that happen back in the 1970s with an Eldorado. The engine vacated its compartment completely, and crushed & burned the driver. Not pretty. Reminds me of a recall on GM cars back in the late 60's or early 70's. Seems a whole bunch of Chevys, Buicks, Olds, etc. were shipped with faulty engine mounts that, when they failed, would allow the engine to drop between the frame and hit the ground. The fix was, believe it or not, a steel cable around one of the exhaust manifolds with the other end bolted somewhere in the engine compartment. The mounts still failed, but the engine oil pan would not hit the pavement. Eisboch I had a Bobcat wagon (Mercury's Pinto equivalent). I'd still like to meet the moron who designed the threaded ring that held the stick shift onto the transmission. The ring was plastic. 4" to the right was the exhaust pipe. One day, I downshifted from 3rd to 2nd in traffic and the shifter popped out of the tranny. Luckily, I was 2 blocks from work, so I carefully ran 2 red lights in 2nd gear and parked the thing. The heat from the exhaust had melted the threads on the ring. The dealer said they'd never heard of such a thing. My father managed to change their way of thinking because his company did all its fleet business with them. They fixed it, but it happened two more times. A mechanic friend and I finally modified the thing. Accessing it involved removing the console. Unfortunately, the console screws were 6" below the rim of the carpet. We had to remove the front seats to remove the carpet. Pass the ammo! |
déjà vu all over again
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... To those that read my "trip to hell" back in November where I spend 5 days in a hotel room in Georgia while they fixed my super duty Ford 350 ..... I just got back from my final trip to Florida - picked up the Scout (another story) and started the trip back to MA. Got to Norfork and visited Eisboch Jr. and his very pregnant wife, then headed north towing the Scout. Got as far as Fredricksburg, VA and the new, heavy duty diesel Ford 350 died again. After all kinds of debates and decisions, I ended up hiring the tow company to transport the dead Ford, with a 20' Scout in tow, all the way from VA to MA. We dropped off the boat in my driveway, then continued to Plymouth, MA and dropped off the dead Ford in the dealer's lot. Gonna be a bit of excitement down there on Monday when they open. Eisboch (back from the last trip to hell) FORD - Found On Road Dead FORD = First On Race Day It's silly to point to situations where cars are maintained by expert mechanics and constantly tweaked. Lyle's '68 Stang never lost in the local 1/4 mile on Route 1. Indicative of nothing relative to other cars. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:31:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:
wrote in message roups.com... Wayne.B wrote: On 12 Dec 2005 07:09:33 -0800, wrote: My little V40 contiues to scoot along without a hitch or hiccup. I'm not sure what we'll replace her Subaru with, but it would be a Volvo XC70 if we found the right deal on the right car and it's unlikely to be another Subaru unless they have done something about front seat comfort in the last few years. ====================================== I've never owned a Volvo but have rented a few and always found the front seats to be among the most comfortable I've ever seen. Unfortunately their self perpetuated reputation for reliability doesn't seem to stand up under scrutiny however. With a Volvo, you put up with a lot of minor nuisances (many are electrical in nature), but with proper maintenance and a little luck it's possible to get huge longevity from the basic power train. The Japanese cars, in general, are a little more reliable than a Volvo- but are less likely to do 200-300k without an engine overhaul (as Volvos often do), and less sturdy in a catastrophic accident. I dunno about that Japanese engine thing, Chuck. I had a 1982 Tercel. At 160k or 180k miles or so, my mechanic thought it would be interesting to check compression. The numbers were perfectly even and within spec across all 4 cylinders. He thought his measuring thing was screwed up, so he tried another. Same results. No nasty engine problems of any other sort, either. No ooze around gaskets, nothing. Unfortunately, some drunk a-hole decided to total the car, so I never found out how far it could go. I suspect that if the motor was going to need a total overhaul, it would've shown SOME signs of age by that point. Yesterday I was 'bragging' about my GMC pickup. It was in the shop for a new clutch, but had been of great service for the past ten years and 113,000 miles. This morning, Ronnie, my mechanic guy, called to wish me Merry Christmas and let me know what else they found wrong with the truck. So far, the list includes: Clutch needs replacement Intake manifold gasket leaking water Left rear spring has a broken leaf Brake master cylinder leaking Power steering pump leaking I sure wish I hadn't already done all my Christmas shopping! -- John Herring Hope your Christmas is Spectacular, and your New Year even Better! |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:31:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Wayne.B wrote: On 12 Dec 2005 07:09:33 -0800, wrote: My little V40 contiues to scoot along without a hitch or hiccup. I'm not sure what we'll replace her Subaru with, but it would be a Volvo XC70 if we found the right deal on the right car and it's unlikely to be another Subaru unless they have done something about front seat comfort in the last few years. ====================================== I've never owned a Volvo but have rented a few and always found the front seats to be among the most comfortable I've ever seen. Unfortunately their self perpetuated reputation for reliability doesn't seem to stand up under scrutiny however. With a Volvo, you put up with a lot of minor nuisances (many are electrical in nature), but with proper maintenance and a little luck it's possible to get huge longevity from the basic power train. The Japanese cars, in general, are a little more reliable than a Volvo- but are less likely to do 200-300k without an engine overhaul (as Volvos often do), and less sturdy in a catastrophic accident. I dunno about that Japanese engine thing, Chuck. I had a 1982 Tercel. At 160k or 180k miles or so, my mechanic thought it would be interesting to check compression. The numbers were perfectly even and within spec across all 4 cylinders. He thought his measuring thing was screwed up, so he tried another. Same results. No nasty engine problems of any other sort, either. No ooze around gaskets, nothing. Unfortunately, some drunk a-hole decided to total the car, so I never found out how far it could go. I suspect that if the motor was going to need a total overhaul, it would've shown SOME signs of age by that point. Yesterday I was 'bragging' about my GMC pickup. It was in the shop for a new clutch, but had been of great service for the past ten years and 113,000 miles. This morning, Ronnie, my mechanic guy, called to wish me Merry Christmas and let me know what else they found wrong with the truck. So far, the list includes: Clutch needs replacement Intake manifold gasket leaking water Left rear spring has a broken leaf Brake master cylinder leaking Power steering pump leaking I sure wish I hadn't already done all my Christmas shopping! -- John Herring My condolences. |
déjà vu all over again
Do I understand you correctly, in your opinion, Lucas Oil Stabilizer is a
godsend for those using low RPM diesels, but you are not sure of higher RPM gas engines. "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:44:42 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" The fastest and most accurate Gun in the World wrote: Tom, I read and lost the post where you said you used the Lucas Oil Stabilizer, and found it to be a great additive. 15 yrs ago I used to use Slick 50, and thought I got better gas mileage and Slick 50 said it protected better than regular oil. Unfortunately, it also clogged up engine. You are obviously smarter than the average person. You obviously are very mechanically inclined. Didn't that report make you wonder if the additive was protecting the engine and components when the engine was running at high RPM? I've never turned over 2k on that truck since I've owned it. In cruise mode, it runs somewhere around 1.4/1.5K so comparatively speaking, it's not running high rpm. We're also talking rear end gears here which are an entirely different animal than engine oil. I know guys who mix Marvel Mystery Oil in their gas at 200/1 too - never been convinced that works either. :) |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:31:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: I dunno about that Japanese engine thing, Chuck. I had a 1982 Tercel. At 160k or 180k miles or so ============================================ We had an '81 Corolla purchased used as a "station" car. It had over 180K and was still running (although getting tired) when we sold it. Another Corolla that we bought new in '89 was over 200K and still running last we heard of it. I bought a '92 Camry new when I started commuting from the NY burbs to NJ every day. Our youngest son is still driving it regularly in NYC traffic and it's up to 192K. My 2002 Tundra is barely broken in at 55K and we tow a 6,000 lb boat/trailer with that. Our 7 y/o Honda Accord is over 100K and still runs like new. We always replace the timing chain, spark plugs and water pump at 100K miles as routine maintenance on all of our cars. Other than that, and one new radiator on the Camry, nothing other than routine stuff. Detroit hates us and the feeling is mutual. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:24:46 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: What's the most common vehicle? ============================= Dodge Caravans are right up there with the best (worst). Tranny problems most likely based on our experience. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:24:46 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: What's the most common vehicle? ============================= Dodge Caravans are right up there with the best (worst). Tranny problems most likely based on our experience. If I was blindfolded in the passenger seat, I could tell you with almost 100% accuracy when we were following a Chrysler van, just by the stench. Even the younger vehicles seam to melt down quickly. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:37:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: I had a Bobcat wagon (Mercury's Pinto equivalent). I'd still like to meet the moron who designed the threaded ring that held the stick shift onto the transmission. ROTFLMAO!!! That was a wonder of engineering wasn't it? In all fairness, it's harsh to expect knowledge to be transferred easily in a country as large as ours. Sometime between 1960 and 1965, my friends and I discovered that you could melt toy soldiers with heat from various sources. Should we assume the Ford engineers also knew plastic could melt? |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
Doug Kanter wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "FREDO" wrote in message .. . Subaru's are designed to crumple in order to absorb impact. Also, they are designed to push the engine and transmission downward under the passenger compartment in a frontal crash via a "Pitching Stopper" to lessen the possibility of the engine coming into the passenger compartment. They consistently receive 5 star ratings from the U.S. government in crash testing. Saw that happen back in the 1970s with an Eldorado. The engine vacated its compartment completely, and crushed & burned the driver. Not pretty. Reminds me of a recall on GM cars back in the late 60's or early 70's. Seems a whole bunch of Chevys, Buicks, Olds, etc. were shipped with faulty engine mounts that, when they failed, would allow the engine to drop between the frame and hit the ground. The fix was, believe it or not, a steel cable around one of the exhaust manifolds with the other end bolted somewhere in the engine compartment. The mounts still failed, but the engine oil pan would not hit the pavement. Eisboch I had a Bobcat wagon (Mercury's Pinto equivalent). I'd still like to meet the moron who designed the threaded ring that held the stick shift onto the transmission. The ring was plastic. 4" to the right was the exhaust pipe. One day, I downshifted from 3rd to 2nd in traffic and the shifter popped out of the tranny. Luckily, I was 2 blocks from work, so I carefully ran 2 red lights in 2nd gear and parked the thing. The heat from the exhaust had melted the threads on the ring. The dealer said they'd never heard of such a thing. My father managed to change their way of thinking because his company did all its fleet business with them. They fixed it, but it happened two more times. A mechanic friend and I finally modified the thing. Accessing it involved removing the console. Unfortunately, the console screws were 6" below the rim of the carpet. We had to remove the front seats to remove the carpet. Pass the ammo! My wife (before I met her) had a Pinto that got stolen in San Francisco where she worked. She called the cops, the cops came, and of course, she was crying about her car.....the cops asked her the make, she said Pinto with the Rolls Royce looking front, and they laughed, asking, so....what are you crying for?? |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:36:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Should we assume the Ford engineers also knew plastic could melt? Someone did an analysis that showed the plastic would not melt until a month after the warranty expired. After being hailed as a cost saving genius, they were promoted into senior management to look for other similar "opportunities". And so another once great industry slid into decline... |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:31:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: I dunno about that Japanese engine thing, Chuck. I had a 1982 Tercel. At 160k or 180k miles or so ============================================ We had an '81 Corolla purchased used as a "station" car. It had over 180K and was still running (although getting tired) when we sold it. Another Corolla that we bought new in '89 was over 200K and still running last we heard of it. I bought a '92 Camry new when I started commuting from the NY burbs to NJ every day. Our youngest son is still driving it regularly in NYC traffic and it's up to 192K. My 2002 Tundra is barely broken in at 55K and we tow a 6,000 lb boat/trailer with that. Our 7 y/o Honda Accord is over 100K and still runs like new. We always replace the timing chain, spark plugs and water pump at 100K miles as routine maintenance on all of our cars. Other than that, and one new radiator on the Camry, nothing other than routine stuff. Detroit hates us and the feeling is mutual. One of my vehicles is a '95 Jeep Cherokee with a quarter million + hard miles on it. Cracked radiator, water pump, and routine maintenence is all it's ever seen, still runs like a top. |
déjà vu all over again
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:44:42 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" The fastest and most accurate Gun in the World wrote: Tom, I read and lost the post where you said you used the Lucas Oil Stabilizer, and found it to be a great additive. 15 yrs ago I used to use Slick 50, and thought I got better gas mileage and Slick 50 said it protected better than regular oil. Unfortunately, it also clogged up engine. You are obviously smarter than the average person. You obviously are very mechanically inclined. Didn't that report make you wonder if the additive was protecting the engine and components when the engine was running at high RPM? I've never turned over 2k on that truck since I've owned it. In cruise mode, it runs somewhere around 1.4/1.5K so comparatively speaking, it's not running high rpm. We're also talking rear end gears here which are an entirely different animal than engine oil. I know guys who mix Marvel Mystery Oil in their gas at 200/1 too - never been convinced that works either. :) I wouldn't do that with today's fuel delivery systems. |
déjà vu all over again :Subaru
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:37:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: I had a Bobcat wagon (Mercury's Pinto equivalent). I'd still like to meet the moron who designed the threaded ring that held the stick shift onto the transmission. ROTFLMAO!!! That was a wonder of engineering wasn't it? Have worked in auto plants over the years, it was always amazing how stupid decisions were made like that for the inane reasons. I swear that the "Big Three" were the most wasteful and incompetent corporations. No wonder the Asians and Europeans are kicking their asses. |
déjà vu all over again
Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Skipper" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: Consumer Reports is a joke. They just do cursory evaluations of the vehicles. They're even worse with their boat reports. Many of the reports stoop to the misleading superficial levels of a Chucky boat review. -- Skipper When did CR begin evaluating boats? There is nothing to that effect in their index of reviews. Are you drunk again? Many, many years ago, in the 1950s, CU used to evaluate outboard motors. I'm not sure when that stopped. I don't recall any CU boat reviews, well, maybe canoes. No...nothing at all, at least as far back as their index goes, which is quite a few years. It would be ridiculous anyway. Scupper's drunk again. Maybe he's got that laser light pointed in the wrong direction. You oughta zip down here to try out a variety of handguns before you buy one...One of the local ranges has about 40 you can borrow and try out. Harry, I won't even drive to certain parts of this city because commercial strips disgust me so much. No way I'd drive that far to look at a gun! A $3000.00 Alembic bass guitar....maybe. But not a gun. Speaking of which, I had the pure pleasure last week of playing a Walker handmade archtop guitar, worth $6000 dollars. It is a beautiful looking, beautiful sounding piece. If I remember correctly, he's from Connecticut. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com