Old Nick wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:51:29 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

But they HAD to do that to counteract the falloing birthrate / new
market appearances.

As life expectancy rises, product life falls. Just think of the
extra
profits!

Heh!

Funny thing is, at least until recently, cars had moved in the other
direction. When I was a kid, 100,000 miles was uncommon, tires last
12,000 to 15,000 miles, shocks came from the factory just about worn
out, and rust started eating the finish the day the vehicle rolled
outdoors. Today, anyone who doesn't get 150,000 miles without major
repairs feels as if he's been screwed--and he has. Tires last 40,000 to
60,000 miles. Rust is seldoom a problem inside a decade, shocks are
much better overall and last over 50,000 miles.

Just a few small points that I can illustrate from my own life: my '50
Studebaker had some great features--a hill holder was foremost--but the
engine was a POS, a six cylinder that ate rod bearings because of
crankshaft slop, caused by poor design; any mid-'50s Ford ever made
with rocker panels that rusted out inside of two years; a spun main
bearing on a 1966 Plymouth Barracuda that I was told was common;
whiplash problems in the distributor of a '68 Barracude 340S, which
also came from the factory with wide oval tires that lastaed about 8000
miles. Warranty: tough **** jack. You bought it. It's yours. Don't
bother us.