Built like a Mercedes (?)

Yes, during the sixties 100,000 miles was the exception, not the
rule. Valve jobs at under 50,000 were not unheard of. Cams and lifters
were also weak spots. And rocker arms.Timing chains usually needed
replacement around 100,000 as well.

 

You forget I worked for Toyota and also worked in Africa, where the
Hilux WAS available as a half ton, And Toyota UK did, at least up to a
couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. Wasn't able to get the
specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not
downloads the e-brochure.

 

Well if that is what you meant, fine, but you responded to the above
quote in such a way that you SAID something far different.

*************************
Dave

 

Or for fucktards that still believe Microsoft is perfect. I like MS.
I use a lot of their software. I think most of it is far superior to
everything else available for Windows. Yet I also am able to
recognize that outhouse express is a fools newsreader. Take a look
and you will see all top posters tend to use MS outhouse express.

*************************
Dave

 

I like to be clear, Dave.
How did I respond to mean anything else - or is the fine art of
sarcasm totally lost on you?

Somebody - I thi it was Huv said:
to which I responded:

Boy - someone needs to go to Haiti or Burkina Faso. Quite densely
populated compared to the USA, Canada, Europe, or even South Africa,
and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world.


Pretty clear, I thought, sarcasm not withstanding.

 

You've snipped it out of context.

No evidence was offered that "Americans are harder on our vehicles " whatever.
Simply an assertion out of thin air.

Graham

 

No evidence was offered that "Americans are harder on our vehicles "

Well Graham, I guess you missed the part where I stated that I personally
had 7,000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity, legally
restrained to 2500lbs capacity, has axle and tire ratings for 12,000lbs
(gross) and (here is the part you deny seeing) with thta load weighed in at
14,000 lbs gross. So your one ton trucks are great. But apparently our 3/4
ton trucks are able to haul in excess of THREE tons.

Now, if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isn't being
hard on it, what in your view, IS being hard on it?

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

recognize that outhouse express is a fools newsreader. Take a look

Some of us do just fine with OE. It's not the tool, but the skill of the
one using the tool that most often makes the difference.

 

Canadian winters?

Was this a trick question?

 

Thats not true. More people in general use OE. Thats because it comes
free with windows. It's already installed on their computers.

It's ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so
called accepted practice is to bottom post. Yet, in the business world
when replying to an email the reply goes at top.

 

Now, if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isn't

Its only a trick question if your name is Graham or Huw.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Canadian winters?

Was this a trick question?


--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home page: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net[/QUOTE]

 

It's ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called

Which shows just how professional some of the whiners are.

Interesting observation Miles, I'd seen what you are saying, but never gave
it a second thought.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Somebody had to make a start on
attacking the problem somewhere, and it was us. Without that start,
there'd've been much less impetus for the development of things like
"digital" (electronic) fuel injection and other engine management and
emission control technologies. Want proof? Go look at a 1990-model
Mexican-market Chrysler Spirit. Parked at the curb, it looks almost
exactly like its US Dodge Spirit counterpart. But those cars, brand new
from the factory in 1990, had carbureted 2.5l engines running on leaded
gasoline.
Emission/ignition/fuel system that would've been current circa 1971 in
the US and Canada (maybe that's overstating the case a little; the '90
Mexican Spirits have electronic control of spark advance, but that's
the *only* modern engine management system they have). And that's just
one example. How 'bout carbureted Volvos (with manual chokes, even!)
clear on up through the late '80s and early '90s in some countries?
Sometimes carmakers decided to equip all their worldwide production
with the most modern of emission control systems, but often they did
not. Somebody had to start the process by writing a law.

Of course, taking up the cause first meant, by definition, that we were
the ones to have to cope with the problematic, incomplete results of
the early efforts as we moved through the learning curve.

Disagree. Bosch D-Jetronic electronic fuel injection, introduced in
1968 and used through 1976 or so on various German and Swedish cars.
Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, VW, etc. The only differences between that
system and *scads* of early-mid '90s cars are minor:

-No closed-loop operation with D-Jet (no O2 sensor)

-Component design and construction differences (MAP sensors got
smaller, engine position sensors got moved out of the distributor and
over to the crank and/or camshaft)

The system's efficacy compared to carburetors was obvious not only in
driveability, but also in emissions. In 1972, the Volvo 164's 3-litre
inline Six was available either with twin emission-controlled Zenith CD
carburetors, or with D-Jetronic. Engine idle spec for tuning: 2.5%
exhaust CO with carburetors, 1.0% with D-Jet.

The D-Jet system was copied almost exactly by GM for much-ballyhooed
installation on the '77 Cadillac Seville, to the point where several
components interchange directly.

Following D-Jetronic was K-Jetronic released in 1973, which was a
wholly mechanical fuel injection system. Feedback control with an O2
sensor was added for '77, and that system stayed in production,
eventually gaining fullelectronic control, well into the 1990s.

It's not that EFI wasn't possible, it's that for the most part the US
automakers just weren't interested in equipping their cars with it.
They considered it too expensive, which was a shortsighted calculation:
A new 1975 Volvo 240 with K-Jetronic had near-perfect driveability
manners. A new 1975 almost-anything-made-in-the-US could not match the
fuel injected cars' Instant starts hot or cold, no stumbles or sags or
lean surge or any of the other problems suffered in spades by '70s
carbureted systems. How much of the cost "savings" by staying with
carburetors two decades too long do you suppose was pissed away in
constant warranty comebacks for driveability faults and breakdown of
the complex carburetor emission control add-ons, early engine failures
due to ragged-edge lean carburetion, and customer goodwill forever
lost? (Answer: More than all of it!)

Well...kinda both. There was a great deal of bad engineering coming
from all over the world in 1970s cars. A very large proportion of it
did come from US automakers. Part of it was simply due to learning
curve progress: the task assigned was new! Much of it was indeed due to
poorly-conceived and poorly-implemented regulations. Probably the
biggest failure of the US
Government was its refusal to permit the US automakers to form a
consortium for research and development of emission control technology.
Such consortiums existed to great universal benefit in Europe and
Japan, but the US Feds objected to the idea on grounds it would violate
antitrust laws. So, every automaker had to do his own R&D. A great deal
of time, money and
effort was wasted, and the trip through the learning curve was made
considerably slower and more painful by that stupid refusal.

Not only was there this new task (clean up your cars' emissions!) but
there were other new tasks (make your cars safer! Make 'em get better
mileage, too!) and the old tasks (make 'em appealing so they sell!)
hadn't gone away. At the same time, the '70s saw economic downturns
that slowed up cashflow for US industry as a whole.

So, a great many factors went into causing the automotive situation we
saw in the '70s. These are only a few of them.

False. The only such exemptions were for TRULY tiny cars like the
Subaru 360 that idiot Malcolm Bricklin insisted on importing. The
mainstream Japanese imports from Honda, Subaru, Toyota and Datsun were
all subject to the same safety and emission regulations as everything
Ford, GM, Chrysler and AMC sold.

That's true. Same goes for Mexico (they got on the bandwagon in '91).

That's true (Europe & Japan).

DS

 

I'm sure if you think about it for half a minute, you can come up with
some concrete and quantifiable ways in which Americans are harder on
vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. I know I can.

 

It seems I may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you ?

I agree with your example. I was under the impresion however that many pickups
in the US are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. A bit like a
'boy's toy' really. A kind of show-off 'life-style' vehicle. In some ways not
unlike typical UK usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad.

Graham

 

If anyone's interested, I can really recommend a late V4 version of Netscape
( like 4.9 ) for browsing text newsgroups. It does the job very well. No
useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. Just simple plain
functionality !

Graham

 

There's a simple reason for that. Email can reasonably presume the
recipient is familiar with the previous content. Not so with news messages.

Incidentally even with email, a complex mail is often best responded to
using the inline method ( the best of all ) .

Graham

 

Generally perhaps. Although there seem to be some interesting variables
there too. But I was trying to get to some comparison specifically about
the typical usage of pick-ups.

Graham

 

So not much difference there between the continents.

Huw

 

I have never seen it available in the UK as a half tonner. Perhaps early
1980's petrol versions were?
I should mention that over the last ten years or so, four wheel drive
pickups account for over 90% of sales when available. I rarely see a modern
2wd low slung pickup these days.

Huw