The Truth about the Big D...........

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Well if we would level the damn playing field and tariff Asian imports the way they do our exports it would be a different story. All I ever see is people bad mouthing American cars yet Florence and I are still driving a pair of year 2000 Chev Impala LSs. The people at the garage were we have them serviced say they want first dibs if we ever decide to sell.

I see the commercials for Toyota, Mazda and Honda on TV and I have never seem such butt ugly cars in my life. And Nissan is not a hell of a lot better.

Oh and please don't tell me they are made here, assembled here in 'right to starve' states is more accurate.

Couldn't agree more. My wife's last three were various forms of the Envoy and 200k was getting good an d broke in. I think we got that Jap cars are better rap, in late 70s early 80 when we had to start building fuel efficient tiny cars to compete, and the Japs had been doing it for years and years, There as a curve, but we've definitely caught and passed them. I believe it was Honda who thought an interference engine with a timing "belt" was a good deal. That has to be in the top ten worst engineering feats. Unless they wanted to sell you a new motor every 100k, because that's about how long the belt lasted. Seemed they always give it up at highway speed too, which would insure at least bent valves.

[bobabode]

Still drivin' a Fix Or Repair Daily, though I downsized to six banger Ranger from the F250 5.8L Super Duty Gasshole. It's nice not having two tanks to fill up every damn week.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

Couldn't agree more. My wife's last three were various forms of the Envoy and 200k was getting good an d broke in. I think we got that Jap cars are better rap, in late 70s early 80 when we had to start building fuel efficient tiny cars to compete, and the Japs had been doing it for years and years, There as a curve, but we've definitely caught and passed them. I believe it was Honda who thought an interference engine with a timing "belt" was a good deal. That has to be in the top ten worst engineering feats. Unless they wanted to sell you a new motor every 100k, because that's about how long the belt lasted. Seemed they always give it up at highway speed too, which would insure at least bent valves.

Just about every manufacturer has some interference designs. I suppose it's the price you pay to maximize the compression ratio for highest efficiency/performance.

http://www.agcoauto.com/content/List...erence_Engines

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

That has to be in the top ten worst engineering feats. Unless they wanted to sell you a new motor every 100k, because that's about how long the belt lasted.

That's why they recommend changing the belt every 60,000 miles.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That's why they recommend changing the belt every 60,000 miles.

Yeah, and that's going to cost you what?

$800 bucks at the dealer?

Or maybe a cool $1000?

I dunno, but that's one of the main reasons I got a 4 cylinder Honda Accord instead of a 6. The 4 has a chain.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I dunno, but that's one of the main reasons I got a 4 cylinder Honda Accord instead of a 6. The 4 has a chain.

The '92 Accord EX I used to have didn't.

The 2.3L Ford Rangers I've had were "non-interference" engines. I lost a belt in one of them and it didn't damage the engine at all. I replaced the belt myself in a couple of hours.

Those are really bulletproof engines. Ford uses it as their workhorse small pickup engine and in the past it has been made in turbo and diesel versions, all were tough to kill.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The '92 Accord EX I used to have didn't.

The 2.3L Ford Rangers I've had were "non-interference" engines. I lost a belt in one of them and it didn't damage the engine at all. I replaced the belt myself in a couple of hours.

Those are really bulletproof engines. Ford uses it as their workhorse small pickup engine and in the past it has been made in turbo and diesel versions, all were tough to kill.

John

I won't own anything other than a Toyota or a Honda.

I drove American cars from 1963-1990, then I switched to Japanese.

The change was dramatic.

I'll never go back.

I'm too old to deal with an unreliable piece of shit.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I won't own anything other than a Toyota or a Honda.

I drove American cars from 1963-1990, then I switched to Japanese.

The change was dramatic.

I'll never go back.

I'm too old to deal with an unreliable piece of shit.

There really isn't any difference any more, especially since most of the Japanese cars we buy are made right here.

American car companies do a very decent job these days.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There really isn't any difference any more, especially since most of the Japanese cars we buy are made right here.

American car companies do a very decent job these days.

John

There are two 15 year old Chev Impala LSs in the garage that say they have been doing a damn good job for quite some time. After her time teaching in Japan if I was silly enough to bring home a rice burner Florence would set fire to it in the driveway.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There really isn't any difference any more, especially since most of the Japanese cars we buy are made right here.

American car companies do a very decent job these days.

John

Yep. However, John, you are talking to people who will cite a Pinto they had in high school 40 years ago as proof that every Ford, GM or Chrysler product ever built is a piece of shit. Completely ignoring all of the 40+ year old American branded vehicles still in use.

It's called "narrowmindedness".

Dave