Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

I respectfully disagree. American automobiles consistently fall
behind foreign (especially Japanese) automakers in reliability
and customer satisfaction.

For example, here's absolutely no way I believe a Chrysler 300M is as
reliable as a Lexus. JD Powers, Consumers Report and Edmunds feel the
same way.

And, having owned my fair share of both foreign and domestic
automobiles myself, I had significantly more problems with American
built cars from the big three than any of my Japanese cars.

 

It is called preventive maintenance. Do the proper maintenance and a
vehicle will last a long time. I own a 1941 Lincoln Continental
convertible, a 1964 Mustang V8 convertible, a 1971 Pinto, a 1972 LTD
Brougham convertible and a 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Signature Sedan
all purchased new, except the 41 which was willed to me. They all look and
run like new for that reason.


mike hunt

 

The rusting problems of that area where not the cause of the vehicle
manufactures. The rust we IN the 'new;' BOF steels. US steel was the first
American steel company to make steel in Basic Oxygen Furnaces rather than
in decades old open hearth furnaces. Companies that bough from USS, like GM
where the first to rust through no matter what was done to prevent rust by
the vehicle manufacture. Bethlehem Steel converted to BOFs later. Chrysler
and Ford used BSCO steel and the rust showed up in their cars later. It
took a few years for the steel companies to discover the problem an correct
it.. The open heath furnace used fuel oil to melt the iron with the
components to make steel. The BOF did not use any fuel, instead blew oxygen
into a mix of iron and scraps steel, to burn off the impurities as the
'fuel' The fix was to simply blow the O2 a bit longer.


mike hunt

 

I religiously had and have my preventive maintenance done on every
vehicle I've ever owned. All synthetic oil changed every 3k. Rotate
tires every 5k. Tranny, coolant, brake fluids all done on schedule. I
keep records of all my maintenance. I literally wash and
wax my cars at *least* once a month.

The Dodge Durango (99, purchased new), had nothing but problems.
Electrical, a/c, transmission and paint to name just a few. The
Saturns we owned were equally as dismal in quality. The 79 Camaro
I owned (also new), *had parts falling off it as they handed me the
keys*. The paint faded (black) to nearly white in less than a year
and the sunroof leaked like crazy.

 

Despite their bad press over the rear end pumpkin stud/gas tank
fiasco, and Ford's arrogance in taking care of the problem, Pintos
weren't any worse than any other US try at a small car, and were
lightyears better than GM's Vega.

In fact, the head of the NHTSB back in the '70s, during an informal
exchange with then-Ford president Lee Iacocca, told him, "It's really
too bad what happened with the Pinto. It's really not any worse than
any other car." Iacocca had urged King Henry II to recall all Pintos
for the "skid fix," and King Henry, who hated the Pinto anyway,
refused.

 

Amen! Preventive and routine maintenance is essential. I have an '86
Fifth Avenue that still turns heads and clueless people think it's
from the '90s.

The '41 Lincoln had one, HUGE headache...that awful V12. All the
faults of the flattie V8, plus higher internal friction and lousy
oiling.

 

Obviously you never owned a Chevy Vega! Even the much-maligned Edsel
was a reliable car...once the sheet metal bugs were worked out, a
problem that also affected the '57 Ford and Merc models. One thing
the Edsel gave the Ford world that was a huge plus...the FE engine,
probably once of the most durable and versatile V8s Ford ever made.
Not a huge champ in efficiency like the '49-'62 Barr-Cole engine for
Cadillac, and not at all light, like the cheaply designed Ed Cole
engine for Chevrolet Division, it would run for 300K miles with normal
maintenance before having its heads off for any reason.

The only engines I can compare this one to in terms of ruggedness were
the A and LA, as well as the slant 6 engines from Chrysler, which I'm
convinced will run forever with good maintenance. B and RB
engines....eh.

 

So far, your opinions seem to be about as humble as they are
well-informed.

 

My information has been available in too many places on the net for
far, far too long for me to start worrying about it now.

 

Friends don't let friends drive Asian cars.

;-)

 

Why anyone would rule out a domestic car "just because" its domestic is
beyond me. I have yet to have a domestic car fail to reach 200,000 miles
(my wife's 93 is at 240,000 and my 73 is at 438,000 among others).

 

True Believers in Japanese cars are harder to reprogram than
Scientologists, and just as well-grounded in fact. :-/

 

To each his own. I've taken one American car beyond 400,000 miles, 3
others well beyond 200,000 miles. I've *NEVER* had a Japanese vehicle
that didn't have some massive organ failure at around 150,000. They were
reliable (and exciting) as a Timex watch for the first 100k, but after
that the built-in obsolescence took over. They are made for a
pre-determined life, no more. Great if you replace cars every 2 years,
lousy if you keep them for 10+ like I do.

No thanks, I'd rather have a car built to be serviced and run as long as
I choose to run it.

 

True. Jap cars are no better than US cars now in terms of
reliability. I still have a '77 Honda as a "grocery getter" and they
DID build better cars than, say, GM did in the '70s and '80s, but
that's changed. Later Hondas in the '90s had a whole rash of bad
automatic transaxles and engine problems, none of which Honda
loyalists seem to admit to existing. It's even worse with Toyota
owners...they'll still claim how great their vanilla Camry is, as it's
going into the shop "on the hook" yet again.

Why are Toyota buyers so "programmed?" Toyota Motor USA outspends GM
AND Ford combined on extremely hyped TV and print advertising
.....people just believe what they're told. However, like we're seeing
with the Republipedo Party, people eventually DO get wise and look
elsewhere once they've been screwed long and hard enough. Toyota's
trucks are a scam, pure and simple.

 

Assembly quality on late '70s Chrysler products was dismal at best,
but once all the goofs were fixed, they were pretty darned good,
reliable cars. Once the word got out about Chrysler's thrown together
quality, though, Iacocca had one helluva job turning it around, even
though build quality improved greatly for them during the '80s.

One problem they had were their ancient, decaying assembly plants,
like the Hamtramck "Dodge Main" plant and Highland Park Assembly,
where screwed up management and labor coalesced with bad plant design
to make building a well made car nigh impossible. Once they were
closed or retrofitted and new, modern assembly plants came online,
things turned around in short order, but the public, typically, was
(and still is) very slow on the uptake.

The biggest problem the US automakers had and still have are
incredible "hype" ad campaigns by the Japs. Their cars aren't any
better...they've just programmed buyers into thinking so. Toyota and
Honda are the two biggest and most successful users of this hype.
Sure, they build good cars, but an objective view of MTBF of their
product isn't any better than Big 3 cars now, and hasn't been for many
years. Not only that, but a majority of automotive failures are due
to one reason...owner ignorance and refusal to do routine maintenance.

One caveat to DC, though...they're "over-krauting" their US models
with overly complex and expensive to maintain systems, something the
average US car buyer won't tolerate over time in a lower priced car.
"German engineering" is great...if you can afford to maintain it. Ask
any honest Mercedes or VW owner about that issue. Simplicity and
smart design is what made Chrysler Corporation products what they were
back in the glory days....rugged, run forever on nominal maintenance,
and with better performance than the other guys without being overly
complex.

 

My old CVCC Honda exemplfies this. Although it's almost 30 years old,
it's low in mileage, just over 100K. At 150K, the cylinder head and
exhaust manifold, regardless of age and maintenance, will simply start
to crumble and fall apart. I put 150K on a '75 Civic CVCC, and saw
this happen 20 years ago...there was simply nothing left to fix
anymore! Since those early days, Hondas and Toyotas have become even
more "disposable." If you own one for more than about five years or
125K miles, you've got a huge maintenance/repair headache on your
hands. They are simply designed and built to fill the US market of
idiots who don't maintain anything, and are meant to be crushed at
end-of-life. You know, in Japan, you cannot license and drive ANY car
past 50K miles. It's the law.

To this day, the Japs do NOT understand why anyone would want to drive
any car or truck more than three years or about 80K miles. It's
usually not long after that when Jap cars start to become maintenance
hogs, usually with little, piddly things first, then progressing to
major component failure. Prior to that, even with no maintenance,
they run fine. Now, the Koreans are taking this even further with
their Hyundais and Kias. Remember the Hyundai Excel? That car was
built to literally fall apart after about 40K miles, and most did,
which gave Hyundai Heavy Industries a black eye on the US market for
over a decade. They're back again, but their cars aren't that much
better..they're just slicker. I challenge anyone to run a Hyundai V6
for more than 120K miles without major failure. Another Asiain
self-destructing vehicle: anything by Mitsubishi, one reason DC
dumped them.

There WAS one Japanese car that WOULD run virtually forever...the
earlier Nissans with Ajin Precision engines. Those mills would
outlast any car engine worldwide. I saw a 280ZX engine go almost 500K
before it finally spun a rod bearing. I don't think contemporary
Nissans, however, are built to this same standard. The problem with
Nissans was that the engine and tranny were fabulous...would run
forever...but the rest of the car would decay and fall apart around
them.

That's why I have an M-body. I talked to a Le Baron owner who has
430K on his, and got 300K on the original 318. He's STILL on the
original A-904! NO Jap can can do that...period...end of story. For
that matter, no GM can do that anymore, either.

I believe something capital intensive for the average Joe, like a new
car, should last as long as the buyer wants it to do so, given proper
maintenance, handling and care. Goofy styling trends and gee-gaws
like navigation systems (I can read a map before I leave, thanks very
much) are simply toys to attract people with more credit than sense.
Japanese cars will simply not pass the long term durability test, no
matter how many trips to Jiify Lube their bonehead owners treat them
to. They are designed to fall apart at a pre-determined time and
mileage.

 

Source? Just curious.

Alan

 

Chrysler fans ripping on the reliability of Japanese cars are like Detroit
Lions fans making fun of the Colts for choking every year in the playoffs.

 

I am not aware of any law in Japan that prohibits driving any car past 50 K
miles. The website for the Japan's National Agency of Vehicle Inspection
(English web site: http://www.navi.go.jp/english/index.html outlines a
pretty thorough inspection process but there is no mention anywhere of a
limit on vehicle mileage.

 

Highland Park Assembly??