Consumer Reports rates minivans

NHTSA (the DOT) says "Automakers prefer to have the choice of color. Show
us a pile of dead bodies from red signals, heh heh heh, and we'll consider
mandating them, heh heh heh."

Ford and GM say "There's no proof amber signals are better" (despite GM
having specifically illustrated the amber signals on the new-for-'01 Chev
truck in the promotional brochure and expounded on their "clearer
signal").

American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals."

 

CR are idiots. Always have been, show no signs of changing.

 

Doubtful, roller cams in general are made of different materials with
different hardening processes than were used on slider cams. They
probably made a New and Better mistake (tm). After all, Honda would HAVE
to make a BETTER mistake than GM!

I know not all Honda buyers are jerks, but I sure seem to find the ones
that are and it serves them right. I had one accost me in my daughter's
school parking lot a couple of years ago because I had a "Built when
cars were made to LAST!" window sticker in my '66 Dodge (Kanter auto
products used to send them out in their parts orders). He started
blathering about how he had 150,000 miles on his Accord and how cars now
last SOOOO much longer than they used to, so I just said
"congratulations! Thats really great you got so much out of that car!
You're almost HALFWAY to the mileage on this one!" I didn't bother to
tell him that he was less than a third of the way to the mileage on my
'73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car

 

Oh, but a solid axle is OLD tech! Yuck!

Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head
gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold,
Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company
until then.

 

This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals!
Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high
confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on
when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal. With a
single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for
redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one
side, so at least there's no confusion factor and you still have at
least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL). That's how
all 60s and 70s cars worked, the duelling-red crap came about after
wiring harnesses were converted to support amber-turn, red-brake
separate functions but people disliked the look of amber turn signals
and the carmakers took the cheap way of going back to all red.

 

And I'd argue that the advantage of amber over red was very VERY small,
UNTIL the duelling-red implementations came out. Then it became huge.

 

I agree, not all are jerks, but I've found quite a few that are. Not just
Hondas, but import drivers in general. Even those driving VW / Kia trash.

Funny thing, I've also noticed that in a crowded parking lot, people that
are most likely to illegally park in "in the way" places tend to drive
import cars.

 

Well...much *less* confusion factor.

Which is fine when traffic density and speeds are low enough that you can
see more than one rear lamp assembly. Let traffic density and/or speeds
increase to points they often reach, let the CHMSL burn out, you only get
to see the left or the right, and then it's "Um...red light just came
on...is it a brake light? Is it a turn signal?". This is a bigger problem
up here where the roads get slick than down there where it's not, 'cause
people tend to get on and off the brake rapidly (whether or not they're
deliberately pumping the pedal).

Not the Checker.

Naw, I don't think this is really what happened. Many of the cars that use
duelling reds are not sold in any variant form anywhere amber is required.
I think in many cases it's just a styling gimmick.

I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care.

 

*cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough*

 

A lot of people do, look a the proliferation of "M3" style aftermarket
taillights (look stock but with clear lens turn signal segments) for a
wide variety of cars. I would count myself among the group that thinks
they look better. Too many colors on the rear of a car makes it look
too busy IMHO.

Of course, there's also the proliferation of "Altezza" style taillights
which proves another point, that a good number of people have no sense
of style whatsoever.

nate

 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I blame CR, JD Power et. al.
for this mentality. Too much focus on initial quality and not enough on
long term durability. Really the Germans are the only ones that I trust
for a "drive virtually forever" car (not counting older MoPar and other
well-engineered American cars) but even they have lately succumbed to
the disease of over-gatgetizing their vehicles to the point that they'd
be an absolute nightmare to troubleshoot 10-15 years down the road.

It's hard to actually blame the Asian mfgrs. for not producing cars that
work indefinitely, however; the way the laws are set up in Japan there's
no incentive to produce a car that lasts more than, say, 10 years as
virtually no vehicles older than that will still be in service anyway.

nate

 

I doubt the car manufactures worry so much about the lighting demands of
ricers. Hell half the time their aftermarket lights are wired incorrectly.

 

incorrectly.

Are you kidding? Look at all the ricey-looking taillight designs that
are coming straight from the factory. Of course most of those are from
Asian mfgrs. They are listening to what people want; unfortunately not
tempering it with good taste in some cases.

nate

 

Nonresponsive.

The claim is that the color of the light was objectionable to Americans
(maybe that's how you can tell a real patriot?). Amber turn signals can
look amber, red, pink, colorless/clear, colorless/chrome or yellow when
not emitting light. "They make the car look unattractive" is therefore a
bogus excuse.

DS

 

I agree, but I imagine it's cheaper to make a red lens that transmits
red light than a red lens that transmits amber light. In the absence of
regulations mandating amber, the choice is obvious.

Now why the mfgrs. don't use clear lenses and "NA" type bulbs, that I
can't explain.

nate

 

Ah, but "cheaper" is a different question entirely.

 

And the 64 thousand dollar question: In 2005 did Chrysler switch to a one
bulb tail light system because it was safer or because it was cheaper?

Richard.

 

Never had a lick of trouble with that engine in the one my Dad had. Yes,
it was a buzzing gutless POS, but it ran longer than the rest of the car
did... which isn't saying too much, come to think of it.

 

Nate Nagel wrote:

Indeed.

http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20050208.html

 

What's wrong with a VW 4-cylinder? that block is still in production
today and pumping 180 (conservative) HP with a turbohuffer. Also has
been used as a basis for turbodiesels, but I don't know if the current
TDI is still based on that block or not. Certainly strong enough for
just about anything you'd be able to legally do to it.

nate