Re: GM or Toyota

Page 2 of 3  
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:19:12 -0800 (PST), jr92


As late as the early '80s , or whenever GM stopped using full frames on their cars, GM also had a SERIOUS frame rusting problem. The early Ford Taurus line had a serious problem with subframe mounts rusting off, litterally drolpping the subframes off the body. (due to body-mount washers disintegrating) The 80-81 Tercel rear suspension rustout was fairly limitted to the "rust belt" and when doing the recall, well less than 10% even here in "salt central" Ontario required replacement. The recall involved punch testing, and rustproofing those that passed the punch test. Some had internal coating (like paint) from the factory, and some did not. I THINK it was a dual source situation. Toyota used to ALWAYS have 2 sources for everything. 2 different brake suppliers. 2 different tail-light suppliers. 2 different headlight suppliers, 2 different suspension strut suppliers, etc way back when all toyotas were made in Japan. They were interchangeable as an assembly although parts did not necessarily interchange between assemblies.

for the floor mat issue, virtually NEVER without warning. The sticky throttle has ALWAYS been a "progressive failure" - with pedal effort increasing before the throttles stuck.

it only shows up in situations where braking is affected already - like rough and/or slippery roads - where if you are driving sensibly for the conditions it will NOT cause an accident. Nothing mechanical either.

But GM deserved it every bit as much as Toyota.

In many cases the same things.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Feb, 06:26, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Problem was GM never fixed it that is why they died and went to .........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

governments to pass a law laying out automatic controls as P-R-N-D-L. I remember our government passing it after a series of AT cars went backward instead of forward, I remember one horrific incident where an old lady in an AT car was on a Ferry on the Tamar, but instead of going forward her car lurched back off of the ferry into 30feet of water, her body was recovered the next day.
--
Clive


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Cross posting deleted, automatically)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

criteria of all governments whereas for instance the EU is very strict on what cars can be sold in it's area, which is why firms like Ford and GM have to make a totally different product for the EU.
--
Clive


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:46:16 +0000, Clive wrote:

That why they don't sell US designed cars there?
The UK version of the Escort was pretty close to the US version. OTOH, GM had to buy Vauxhaul to get an 'in' in European markets.
I've heard they're junk, too...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

A large part of why there are different cars for different markets is that the markets have different needs. The Japanese and European markets have fuel that is like 3 or 4 times higher than the price of fuel in the US. SO fuel economy is more important than in the US. In addition, both Europe and Japan are much more interested in fuel economy than we are in the US. In both markets, there is less room for cars, so smaller cars are more useful.
And, besides this, the people have different tastes. In the US, for years people have liked big boat-type cars. In Europe, people have preferred smaller, more nimble cars. For example, Olds was advertising that it had the first 4-wheel independent suspension car made in the US in 1987 or 1988. The Peugeot 504 on which I learned to drive had four-wheel indpendent suspension 13 years earlier.
And the emissions and safety requirements are different, too.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/10/2010 06:16 PM, dr_jeff wrote:

vw have been 4-wheel independent since the 30's. those french citroen 2cv's were in the 40's. the fiat 500 was independent in the 50's. it's basically only detroit garbage that is /still/ being sold with horse-and-cart solid axles.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And only a VERY few of even them. Basically the truck based stuff and the Mustang.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/11/2010 05:59 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

well, the "truck based stuff" includes suv's, and they used to be 50% of the market. then you have all the taxi's, highway patrol vehicles, and all that larger stuff like the camaro, impala, etc. there really is no excuse.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All the highway patrol vehicles up here, virtually, were either Crown Vic based (RWD) or FWD Chevys untill the Charger took a bite out of the market. ALL of the RWD passenger car offerings from Chrysler are independent rear suspension. The Camaro is also 4 wheel independent. The Crown Vic /Pursuit Special is history.
SO - what is still being sold with the "horse and cart" axle is the Mustang and a FEW of the compact SUVs. - and most of the light trucks and BIG SUVs

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2010 10:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

not anywhere else in the world either. and that's my point - we are [were more so] being sold cheap outdated garbage none of the rest of the world will accept. and paying the same price for this cheap crap as the more-expensive-to-produce stuff that performs better and is safer.

agreed, this is a move in the right direction, but after 50 years of laggardly profiteering, detroit just needs to bite the bullet and move on. sure, they make more money, but horse-and-cart suspension is significantly less safe.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TOTALLY not true. You Americanns were DEMANDING that stuff. Good european style cars ARE available in the USA. Good small american cars HAVE been designed and built. You Americans just refuse to buy them.
You cannot put all the blame on the American manufacturers

On the interstates of North America the safety difference between a live axle rear end and an indepdendent rear end is almost microscopic. The difference in ride is significant. On rough roads (think urban Detroit) independent suspension CAN keep the tires more firmly planted on the road, but the installation of MASSIVE tires and wheels on everything from a golf cart to a Hummer negates that advantage pretty quickly (Talking unsprung weight - the REAL reason independent is better.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/13/2010 08:33 AM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

sorry dude, that's not true. people show up and buy what's on the forecourt. detroit ships and sells the stuff with the highest margins - the crap with donkey-cart suspension.

well, frod, much as i dislike their ethics, have good business acumen. as the market has shifted away from gas guzzlers, they brought, and have been selling like hotcakes, their euro line-up to the states. gm otoh, has been trying to sell their obsolete high margin crap, and failing. they have a euro line-up they could sell here, but they refuse to do so. it's not the consumer - frod have shown that.

oh yes we can! see above.

untrue. it's not what happens when the vehicle is cruising in a straight line that matters, but what happens when it needs to suddenly deviate. in that regard, donkey-cart suspension has poor lateral stability and poor ground control. all other conditions being equal, the donkey cart is going to lose control first, hence it's more dangerous.

true, unsprung weight is a factor, but that's not the whole story. when cornering, you can configure independent to assist in cornering force, /and/ retain lateral stability. donkey-cart just can't do that.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But you CAN vote with your wallet and buy something else.

If you refuse to buy the big crap, they WILL bring in the Euro stuff.. You need to vote with your wallet, not just bitch on the internet.
If GM or whoever your favourite is does not sell what you want, vote with your FEET and your wallet. Buy Ford. Buy Volvo. Buy whatever from who-ever. Ford's ethics are no worse than GM or any of the others - Old Henry's long gone (His ethics WERE defnitely questionable)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:28:50 -0800, jim beam wrote:

Citroen had a LOT of innovations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cover the distance from NYC to Detroit - much less from Tampa to Seattle or Bangor Maine to SanDiego?????? In Britain it's pretty hard to drive 100 miles in a straight line. In most of Continental Europe it is the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:54:44 -0500, clare wrote:

But I sure would love to drive the road Princess Grace got killed on driving down into Monaco...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

their own. American iron makes poor rallye cars too. When I was ralllying in my (relative) youth we had a 1972 Renault R12.. On the rough roads of central Africa the American cars would not have stood up well either. Killed my '67 Peugeot too. The '49 VW stood up pretty well, considering!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2010 10:00 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

indeed.
awesome. but that was one ugly looking car. when i was in europe, i remember seeing some dude with a renault 3.0 v6 in an r12. bet it was fun to drive!

i always thought these were fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:220505_simca.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alpine_A110_1600_-_001.jpg
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.