Mexico selling unsafe cars.

"T0m $herman" wrote in news:l7d6qh$4ik$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

During the emissions era, very little. In fact, the first K-cars were absolutely identical except for the grille and badges.

Mid-late '70s Chrysler products were not very good at all. Absysmal quality surely contributed to their financial woes.

I remember:

- Door weatherstripping shrinking and pulling away from the door frame

- VW engines used in the Omnirizon suffering early valve-stem seal failure

- Body hardware falling apart within months

- Obvious grinding marks under chrome -- in the dealer's lot!

- Dribbly paint -- in the dealer's lot!

- Electrical connectors so loose that headlights and gauges failed

- Dealership mechanics so poorly-schooled in the new FWD cars that they caused more problems than they fixed.

Great styling, though. I thought most of their '70s products were pretty good-looking.

I hate to say this, but that is pretty much typical of all American cars from that era, which was by far the nadir of American auto manufacture. It took being clobbered in their own market by the Japanese for any of the American manufacturers to take notice at just how badly their quality control had become.

Lee Iacocca's book is worth reading for some discussion of what went wrong at Chrysler specifically and what was done about it.

--scott

That's the beauty of market competition. It is only a matter of time before one automaker starts offering the gizmos in mexico and from there all of them will probably end up doing so.

As to the foxnews article, right now it's a question of product mix and margins. In Mexico there probably aren't enough higher priced cars sold to keep the lights on in the dealerships so the margins are higher on the lower teir cars. In the US the product mix dictate making better margin on more expensive cars while cutting margins on the lower end cars. But the quest for sales in a competitive market will eventually increase content while maintaining price points.

Pretty much true, Goes back earlier actually. l was lucky and only got "burned" a bit with bad rusting on a '74 Dart, which was otherwise a decent car. Because I had a lot of kids, I only had a '76 Caprice and a '78 Beauville Van in the from the 70's. Both treated me right, because of solid 350's. Bought them in the early '80's. Wait, there was a '72 Nova in there. Probably my least favorite car. Quick, but tinny. 307, and only car that burned a valve on me. I abused it. Throw-away car, but didn't pay much for it used. Had it maybe a year. Jap cars did a lot for me. Made used GM's real cheap. When you get down to it, there were always some good cars to select from, just not many. The selection happened to suit me fine. Didn't want a Camry/Corolla or a Accord/Civic. Don't spend a lot on cars, and they were bad values for me, beside's being unsuitably small.

An Old VW For Everyday Use? Classic Car section at,

On the other hand, almost all of "Detroit's" cars from the 1970's to early 1980's were horrors of poor ergonomics, poor handling, poor steering feel, poor brakes, poor seat design, poor suspension damping, poor space efficiency, poor fuel economy, poor acceleration, and hideous to boot.

By those standards a first generation Honda Accord was a wonder.

Remember the Motor Trend comparison where a 1300cc Civic S beat the contemporary Mustang Cobra (with a 260 c.i. V-8) in the quarter-mile?

Compared to what and to whom? Never had such issues with my '70's cars.

If you wanted an Accord, I suppose. But that thought never entered my mind, seeing as Honda had no equivalent for a '76 Caprice or '78 Beauville Van. Accord wasn't what I required for hauling a wife and 5 kids.

Nope.

''Detroit Iron'' is Tough. How many old ''Detroit Iron'' vehicles do you see still running around compared to the foreign name brand vehicles?

I'm starting to see a more & more foreign cars with historic tags on them. But I don't see any of them looking good/restored except for a few. Most are getting historic tags to avoid Maryland state inspections.

Never heard of it.

But those 70s and even early 80s Hondas and such were eaten alive by road salt. They didn't last very long. That horrible detroit iron of the

Do you consider the trunk becoming useless in less than 5 years due to rust to be good - happened on both a 1973 Valiant and a 1976 Gran Fury?

Happy that those vehicles are gone - most were about as attractive as a lamprey. Unfortunately, intentionally ugly/nasty vehicles have come back into fashion.

You must have low standards for vehicle design.

Find me a 1970's Detroit vehicle that would be fun to drive around a race track with no modifications other than shaved tires.

Soichiro Honda would have committed seppuku before allowing such atrocities to leave one of his factories.

Although the van was by far the better vehicle, since as a truck the suspension could not be made overly flaccid. For similar reasons the C-series had good space efficiency, and were spared the horrors of over-styling. But still, I would much rather have a Honda Deauville over a Chevy Beauville (and I have extensive experience with both).

I would have got a vasectomy way before number 5.

Pretty funny that the top of the line Detroit "pony car" got waxed by a Japanese "econobox". :)

Well, I never did that. Just drove on streets and highways. Always do, so I have no need for a race car.

Afraid I would commit suicide if all I had squeeze 7 people into an Accord.

Never cared about Ford or Honda, so I can't share your amusement.

Do you live in a place where the roads are all straight too?

Roof rack, dude!

If it worked for Mitt Romney...

Well, as Gerald Ford said, "I'm no Lincoln".

The thing about those old American cars was they had enough metal in them that even though they were rusting and falling apart they were still drivable. This was not the case for the Japanese products.

--scott

Yes, Chicago. But the main thing has always "size." Before I married I drove a '64 Bug and a '67 Squareback. Believe it or not Honda/Toyota had never even been a consideration for me. First due to size and, later due to size and value. Different strokes I guess. Being a used car only buyer, and able to do most maintenance, I've never had an issue finding "good" cars. By "good" I mean reliable, economical and nice to drive. As far as "esoteric" performance stats, they've been acceptable. I learn the car's limits, and stay within them. Learned that early, when I totaled my first car running a slight unbanked curve at 105mph. Wouldn't take it, was gonna flip, and I was forced to straighten the wheel and go off-road. Totaled, and I won't recount the other damage. It was amazing nobody was hurt, beyond my black eye. 1961 Pontiac Ventura. So I learned early that all cars have their limitations, and after that never exceeded them. Takes some discipline, but I'm not speed or performance guy.

hehe.

My '74 Dart was an exception to that. When the trunk went, the rear leaf spring mounts were about to go too. Junked it then.

You've owned a '64 Bug and yet find Hondas/ Toyotas unacceptable due to size and value???

Owned the Bug and squareback before I got married. Actually drove the bug a bit after being married. But it was at the end of it life, rusted out with a one-way flap in the back floorpan and growing mushrooms back there. Anyway, with kids coming one after the other, it was all big cars and the van after that.