Ford, GM have discussed merger, alliance

Tetra ethyl lead did indeed leave deposits when burned and those deposits had the surprising effect of reducing exhaust valve and seat wear. Valve jobs were routine up through the 1950s, but became much less common after that when TEL was being added to most fuel. It is true that TEL was added in order to raise octane ratings and thus support higher compression ratios, but the exhaust valve life improvement was a very real side effect.

When TEL was pulled away in the 80s it was a problem for some of the older engines which lacked hardened exhaust valve seat inserts. Now it is common practice to add those seats when rebuilding older engines in which the valve contacted directly onto the cast iron head surface.

John

I can't seem to find it right now, but if you google it you should find lots about them rollovers. People have burned in these rollovers in rav4's, but to be honest about it, I think people drive these like a road rally, and not realizing they can flip allot easier than a car. And it's not just rav4's, All of them can flip easily if one does not know how to handle a

4x4. And the fuel tank leak on a rav4, I guess any vehicle that flips onto the side where you fill would probably leak to some extent, unless the gas cap was designed not to leak. And most vehicles gas tanks will explode on a high speed impact.

The rav 4 this canadian is so in love with and so sure is better than anything american made, has a roll over rating 1.2 stars meaning it has a

40% chance or better of rolling over in an accident, so says Now then the Tracker by chevrolet has a 3star rating, which means between 20% and 30% chance of roll over. Thesaturn VUE gets the same 3 star rating, so does the Ford Escape. Even thepeace of shit Hyandai Santa Fe got three stars. Whitelightning

My neightbor has a Sante Fa. Nice vehicle. It is not a peice of shit.

Jeff

{snip}

I've never heard Japanese cars to be better. But they have more consistent quality than just about any other carmakers. If you buy one tincan from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, or Mitsubishi, you can be damned sure all their other tincans are exactly the same quality.

Detroit engines have a problem with being based on designs that are over 50 years old, that were meant to shove out endless amounts of power, without any other concern whatsoever. They're archaic by modern standards, and have a lot of excess inner friction due to a very large number of moving parts. Combine that with low compression and a heavy block, and you get an engine that eats gas (or diesel for that matter), without really producing any results. Japanese engines will usually race to high RPMs, and give tons of power with very little volume, but they add a lot of extra parts here and there, to reduce noise, which causes them to have an equally lot of extra parts that brake. European engines are typically more balanced in between, although the French ones are definitely far more brittle than the German - with a likelihood to eat oil for breakfast once they pass 150,000 km.

But for all brands it seems to be current the norm to produce more duds than goodies. Lately it's been a fight for producing the ugliest car possible. What goes against the Avalanche is that it has tons of power, but no real way of putting it to any use because it's not solid enough to actually be used as a truck. The Ridgeline is a very close copy of the same idea, but has an engine that is more in tune with what the truck can physically handle and is capable of. It's the same throughout most of GM's and Ford's vehicles. Except for the few vehicles that have European siblings, most of them are mismatched in what kind of vehicle it is, and what the engine and transmission is like.

We're talking 2006, and Detroit can still only provide a 4-speed heavy duty automatic transmission for their 6.3 L diesels. While Mercedes-Benz have been providing 2x7 speed automatics for their much more powerful 10 L diesels for almost a decade. Detroit is doing very little to compete on anything but towing capacity. Fuel efficiency and making the vehicles interesting from a longterm financial viewpoint seems to be something that have not even been comitted. With Daimler and Chrysler bodding heads, a large amount of changes have been made to Dodge's and Chrysler's engine and transmission lines, which means they're fast becoming more economically viable over the long term, rather than the initial purchase, which is where GM and Ford seems to focus.

{snip}

The problem isn't the workers, it's the management, or lack thereof. Until the Japanese carmakers invaded the states, there was no competition whatsoever. The Japs could make cheaper cars of better quality and still make a bigger profit.

The Japanese model is to invest lots here and now, and then earn it in over the next 15-30 years. The only reason they use people to do the work, instead of robots like it is in their plants in Japan, is because the only way they will get permission to open a new plant in the states is by providing a certain number of jobs per sqft of land they occupy. It's part of the deal. They get tax deductions as a compensation to pay for those wages.

The Detroit companies didn't have any need to compete with each other before the Japs came. The US and Canadian market was so big that there were plenty of pieces in the cake for all of them. Once they got competition, they went to drastic measures, and quality and the workers suffer as a result.

German built cars are based upon the concept of not going on compromise with anything. The makers pay high salaries, and refuse to lower quality. As a result the cars are crazy expensive, but will gladly go a whole million on the dial with nothing more than everyday maintenance. They do have problems with other carmakers being cheaper, but the German market is still big enough, that with having a big chunk of the worldwide luxury market as well, they can more than cover their asses and keep up their business model.

The only exception is GM Europe. They're the only European carmaker that has a worse reputation than Ford. Seeing GM built cars in Europe is almost a rarity, simply because GM focuses on profit over quality. They're crappy cars with very short lifespans, and they're not even cheap. Even Hyundai delivers a better product...

In Japan, the carmakers run clinics and hospitals where their workers and the worker's family, can be treated for free. They don't get medical as such, and if they go to any other clinic than the one their employer assigns them, they have to pay the full cost themselves. And they gladly pay for all sorts of other things, like kids' education, to ensure the workers loyalty, and that of their families. On the other hand, Japanese workers work an average of 12-14 hrs a day, and retire when they're not much more than 50, because their health simply isn't for working much longer than that. In Japan, robots pay taxes, that goes to cover the unemployment for the workers they replaced. So for a Japanese carmaker, complete automation isn't a profit-making strategy, as it'd cost them about the same as keeping the workers. Instead they train the workers thoroughly and ensure that they know that if they screw up their little task, what the result would be for the rest of the company. If you ask any Japanese lineworker what the part he makes is, he'd be able to tell you exactly what it is, what it does, and where it goes in the final car, and why it has to go in that peticular spot. But it comes from a workmorale that's unlike anything in any other country in the world. A pride in taking one for the team that most western countries don't have.

The Japanese model is that all the workers take a paycut if just one makes a mistake that costs the company money. So they all do their best to not make any mistakes. With unions and all that crap, such an idea would never be allowed.

whitelightening, very eloquent post.

i never said that the rav was "better" than "anything" american made... wait a second, the rav is a "better" quality mini SUV than anything the americans make! yes, this includes the VUE, tracker, the Santa FU, and the Grand Viagra. you make yourself look like a tool if you are asserting that a GM tracker is superior in overally quality and design than a rav. is that what you are asserting? Sorry, i forgot... you must believe that Ford and GM are still building better quality products than Toyota, while both companies slip into bankruptcy. Wait a second! I forgot to consider the toyota media bias, the dealer conspiracies... Anyway, i would muhc rather be in a toyota rolling down the highway on a cold Canadian day in a rav with a 1.2 than in a Ford Escape with a rating of 3. After having driven a 98 explorer for a few winter months, i am just glad i survived it. harry in Canada.

Whitelightening, nice piece of mis-information you just posted. i dont know if you are (mis)quoting the results from the 2003 model, but the

2006 NHTSA roll results found here: that the 2006 Rav is better than the VUE, Santa FU and the GrandViagra. way to tell the whole story in your posts. you are a wealth ofinformation. if they did roll back in 2003, at least toyota iscorrecting their errors. nice one. and please, dont confuse my tone - ilike some american cars, like my mustangs. but their quality was poor,and we should expect better. harry

Hyundai is Korean, not Japanese, and the "better initial quality" refers to

03 and up. Before that all Hyundais should've gone straight to the scrapyard. I don't know whoever claimed they were great cars, but they'd need a flocking. Hyundai started out making the worst piece of crap you could find, but have improvd immensely. Todays Hyundais are so much improved that they're actually safe to drive, and not a big moneypit like they used to be. I still wouldn't ever own one - they still have a long way to go to catch up to all the other makers. But for a company that hasn't been making cars for much more than 15 years it's quite an accomplishment.

Have you driven it? It lacks power and stopping ability. That vehicle is way to heavy for the drivetrain and brakes they put in it. The Kia Sportage is the same way though. And the Chevy Equinoxe has some brake issues too - although I believe that they finally put rear discs on the 06s and 07s.

2006 Rav 4 has double torsion bars and electronic stability control. It's about as stable as a mini-van. And it's a joy to drive. It's the only SUV I've ever driven that don't make you feel like you're about to roll just from taking a normal streetcorner at 30 km/h. The Nissan's in comparison are horribly soft, and feel like they'll flip just the wind comes from the wrong direction.

Your post stated YOU owned a 03 Rav4, so yes I am going to compare the vehicle YOU say you own(ed) to what's on the market. If you call that misinformation well it must be a canadian interpretation, especially when YOU said you would rather drive a 10 year old toyota to a new ford. If you just want to look at the 03's that's fine too, it doesn't change the fact the vehicle YOU say you owned and based your judgment of quality on had one of the worst ratings that year. As to traction control that's all and good, but regardless if the damn thing gets sideways its going over, if it gets hit its going over. The only thing I see on its roof more than the rav4 is the ford explorers with that wonderful twin i-beam front suspension. Also your references to "domestics" what domestics, there are no canadian domestics, to a canadian they are all imports.

Whitelightning

It also stays together

UI am reminded of my 77 in Germany. 4 of us bought new bikes through the canadian exchange services, 2 Harley Low Riders with the 80cid engines, 1 sportster, and 1 Kowasaki KZ1000. The KZ would eat the low riders alive off the line on level ground, but put guy and his gal on each bike, back pack, sleeping bags, tent, and the KZ still walked to we hit the mountains, then all we heard going up was the KZ down shifting, half way down the next side he catch up, 1/3 up the next we would go by again. Its the same with the ricers, light load, yeah quick, loaded, they got power.

French, Yeah I agree all the way there. The English sadly werent much better. Beautiful designs, the MG-B's, the Bug eyed Sprites, the sexy as all get out Jag, The jenson healy, especially the 71-75 models. Under powered engines, fuel systems that were nightmarish, and Lucas prince of darkness loosing the smoke from the wiring systems all the time.

You seem to forget about the allison 6 speed in the GMs. alas ford hasnt been able to make a good heavy duty auto since the C-6.

You do realize that 10 L is a medium/heavy duty truck engine? that class 8 trucks start out with 10L engines? That in that arena there are 10-15 speed auto shift trannies? The only reason for that many gear choices is narrow torque range. its why early 2 stroke Detroits needed 9-13 speed trannies, yet the Mack Thermodyne did the same job more economically with a 5 speed with a low hole. I got way too many miles in both style of rigs to know I would rather shift 5 times, than 13 times in heavy traffic everytime we start to roll.

I don't think that's right ether, while GM and Ford have been loosing it in the polls for initial quality, they shine in the after three years of ownership polls..

Whitelightning

Oh Goodie, two companies who rely almost completely on half tons... that'll be great. Now don't get me wrong, i will forever own a halfton, but the majority of people are switching away from larger vehicles, and finding ways to get by without halftons.

I mean when you think about it, a lot of people with half tons, would savew enough fuel and repairs in a year owning a small 4 banger foreign car to rent a pickup truck for weeks of hunting, or weekends of fourwheeling, etc. I've considered it, but for work I need a half ton.

Fingers sometimes faster than brain, should read they got no power.

Whitelightning

That's like calling the ax in your garage your grandfather's ax, even though you've replaced the head twice and the handle three times.

The 3800 from GM (Buick) is an example. It is one of Ward's 10-best engines of the 20th century.

GM refined the engine by improving the design of the crankshaft, improved the pistons by lighter-weight materials and moving the piston rings out closer to the top of the piston, a new intake manifold improved air flow, the cylinder head got larger valves. In addition, GM kept up with the engine electronics.

A large number of moving parts? Compared to what? The major difference in the number of moving parts is the valve train. Having a cam in the block reduces the length of the valve chain, which reduces streching. The push-rod valve train has proven to be reliable over time.

The low compression is for emmission. In addition, when it eats gasoline, it helps it eat regular gas, not the more expensive high-octane gas.

I hope they have brakes. Good for prevent crashes.

The extra parts also improve emissions.

I did not know engines eat breakfast. I will have to make sure mine gets more fiber.

Unless you try new things, you won't find out what works. Personally, I think many of the Chrysler and Dodge cars are way cool. I also like some of the Ford products.

Yet, how many people really want to use the Avalanche as a truck? Not many. The closest to off-road use they see is when they have to park it on the grass.

Or what you like is different from what most people like.

What? GM and Ford made billions and billions of dollars on their trucks.

The initial purchase is where most of the money car makers maker is. The dealers take in a lot of money on service, however.

Jeff

You forgot Yugo, Hyundai was great by comparison. If we throw British cars into the mix of choices, I think walking becomes the default selection...

Hehe.... I actually drove one of the original Yugos.

It was scary!!!

The steering wheel still had that excessive plastic on it from the injection molding process and the entire car shook when idling in gear.

I drove it around the block and when I returned to the dealership the salesman asks me "so what did you think"?

I told him I was happy I returned alive...