Congoleum Breckenridge wrote in
:

On 5/30/2011 3:49 PM, harry wrote:
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.



I hope they're more reliable than 60's - 70's British Cars!


I owned a Triumph Herald and an English Ford Cortina GT.
the Cortina was a great car,very fun to drive. It did have a Lucas
generator that crapped out while on a trip from Buffalo to Boston,had to
spend the night in a motel.
(and was actually AWOL,but my boss covered for me!...)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On May 30, 11:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:00:30 -0500, dpb wrote:
On 5/30/2011 8:27 PM, wrote:

The '77 olds was an older design. *They weren't awful, though they did have
quality problems too. *Most of the '70s was lost on Detroit.

84 Olds is still on the road part time w/ a friend in TN

'84ish was when Detroit was finally waking up. *Though they were still
rustbuckets. *Inbetween was a pile of crap.


My Father-in-law bought one of those late 1970's Olds 98 Diesel, I
forget the exact year of the thing. That car spent a lot of time on
the end of a tow truck headed for the dealer.

-C-

Jim Yanik wrote:
Congoleum wrote in
:

On 5/30/2011 3:49 PM, harry wrote:
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.



I hope they're more reliable than 60's - 70's British Cars!


I owned a Triumph Herald and an English Ford Cortina GT.
the Cortina was a great car,very fun to drive. It did have a Lucas
generator that crapped out while on a trip from Buffalo to Boston,had to
spend the night in a motel.
(and was actually AWOL,but my boss covered for me!...)

Whoa,
My wife's Sunbeam Rapier had Lucas(knight of darkness) electrical and
Stromberg side draft twin carb. Keeping that car running was a fun then
as a young guy. Thinking back I just smile to myself wondering how I
managed. The charging system in it was not a generator, not an
alternator, it was something in between which needed polarizing when
disconnected.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 16:36:14 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 12:49:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...%2Findex.jsonp



You think, perhaps, that perhaps they've simply been building cars all along
that people actually want to buy? Nah, that couldn't be it.


The dark horse is catching up.
http://autos.aol.com/article/hyundai-kia-expected-to-top-toyota-lexus-in-may-sales/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk3|66929

That's certainly good news for people in this area (Kia assembly plant 20mi
one direction and Hyundai 60 in the other). ;-)
Hi,
I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good
design when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.
Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher
wages and benefits not improving their workmanship. As a result GM and
Chrysler almost went belly up.

In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:


I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good
design when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.
Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher
wages and benefits not improving their workmanship. As a result GM and
Chrysler almost went belly up.

And the easiest way to get a UAW member worked into a tizzy, is to
agree with him that management did, indeed, screw things. Especially in
the way they managed the unions.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Hi,
I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good
design when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.
Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher
wages and benefits not improving their workmanship. As a result GM and
Chrysler almost went belly up.

Only detriment The UAW had was making the cars cost more than
otherwise.
You might argue the bean counters cut quality to accommodate the union
costs, but that was their call.
Union didn't design the cars or oversee quality control.
That's all management.
Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?
Nothing.
Toyota/Honda made decent models, grew a brand recognition, and
protected the brand with quality.
The GM mentality kind a reminds me that exec who came out with "new"
Coke.

--Vic

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message ...


I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good design
when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.

How many examples of that can you provide? And if Detroit "always" gets rid
of good designs, why have successful and popular designs like F-series
pickups, and the Mustang, and various Cadillac and Jeep models, and the
Explorer and so on and so forth been in production for years and even
decades?

Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher wages
and benefits not improving their workmanship.

As opposed to non-union workers who don't care about pay and benefits, only
about being good at what they do.

As a result GM and Chrysler almost went belly up.

When a company gets into trouble the first place to look for an explanation
is management. If the union is to blame, then why didn't Ford (which signs
contracts with the same union as GM and Chrysler) get into the same trouble,
or if you prefer, why did Ford do so much better than the other Detroit auto
makers? Unions can certainly be *part* of the problem, but management is at
the head of the list.

"DGDevin" wrote

When a company gets into trouble the first place to look for an
explanation is management. If the union is to blame, then why didn't Ford
(which signs contracts with the same union as GM and Chrysler) get into
the same trouble, or if you prefer, why did Ford do so much better than
the other Detroit auto makers? Unions can certainly be *part* of the
problem, but management is at the head of the list.

Everyone is to blame. The company made cars good enough to last the payment
book so they could sell you another. The union was more interested in money
and benefits than doing a good job. If the workers had good ideas, managers
ignored them Rather than have a strike, they gave to unions good money and
raised the price of the car and the customers kept buying . The consumer
would bitch a little about the old car, but buy the new model the day it hit
the showroom.

I'm sure many of you here remember the big reveal of the new models. People
would be lined up at showrooms to see them. Wow, look at those fins, look at
all the chrome!

I recall my father buying a couple of Chevy's and taking them back to the
dealer with a list of 20 or more items to be fixed. Paint blemishes, poor
fit body, leaks, mechanical items that did not work. etc. The dealer fixes
half of them so you had to go back again. Of the last 5 cars I bought, one
had two defects, two had one defect, the last two had zero defects. All US
built but not all US owned.

I have a 2010 Dark Cherry red Hyundai Sonata Limited. The paint is
flawless metallic, the body panels are a perfect fit, every seam exact. It
is better paint than any car I've ever owned, including a couple of luxury
cars. So far, 31,000 perfect miles.

Sure, I loved the style of some of the 50s cars, especially the 58 Impala,
but mechanically, today they are far superior.

ROY AND HIS MERRY MEN TELL ME THEY WILL RETURN TO CIVILIZATION WHEN
CARS FLY.
AND WITH WHAT I HAVE SEEN BECOME OF TRAFFIC, WHO CAN BLAME THEM.

SO, CONTACT THOSE WRETCHED REPUBS AND DEM AND INDIS TO START MOVING
LEGISLATION TO THE FRIENDLY SKY....AND REALLY EARN THEIR PAY.

THEY WILL BE AN EXCLUSIVE SKY THUNDERING FEW.

DO IT, OR I WILL HAUNT EVERY COMMISSIONER IN DUE COURSE.

BOOWAHAHAHA......THINK ABOUT IT...WATT FUN FEATURE!

TGITM
PATECUM

On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:15:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.It had a V-8.

Huh?
The first Mustangs were just Ford Falcons with a sporty body. Until
Carroll Shelby tore one apart and rebuilt it with a decent suspension,
there was not much sporty about them.
Guys who had real sports cars laughed at all of the American "sports
cars", including Corvettes.
They might have been good between stop lights but if you got one on a
winding road, an old MG with a good driver would leave you, spun out
in the dirt.

That's why they were called "muscle cars". They weren't sports cars at all.
Sports cars were what the French drove. ;-)

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message

om ...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were
fifty years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...auto.html?_r=1
&s
rc=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpag es%2Fbusiness%2Fi
nd ex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit built
small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair. Then the
Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold many
of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's.
Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not any
better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None of
them
made it to 80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I had
to put two timing gears in it and the transmission went out at
75,000. I have only bought Toyotas for the last several cars. One
went 100,000 with only standard maint. Traded it off for a Camry
and put 190,000 on it and only changed one sensor. Just put tires
on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled maint.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go American
than he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is
junk, I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the 100
million plus dollars a year for doing it
.





How many Pintos and Vegas do you see around these days,as "antiques"?
You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They were all crap.

I see a *lot* of vintage Mustangs. 64-1/2 models are quite valuable
and they aren't that rare. There is more to a valuable vintage car
than age.

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.

Wrong.

It had a V-8.

Wrong. It came with either a small V-8 (289CID) or straight-6 (200CID).

The very first ones were also firetraps,worse than the Pintos.
there was no metal barrier between the fuel tank and the passenger
compartment,any rear end collision resulted in the fuel filler breaking and
gas spilled into the trunk and passenger compartment.

As was posted elsewhere, it was a *Falcon* with a pretty face. It was still
a nice car. ;-)

the Mustang IIs economy cars of the 70's were recognized as junk.
Later,Ford "redesigned" the Mustang to bring the pony car back closer to
the original. It was actually a whole new car platform,not related to the
Mustang II.

What relevance does any of this have to the topic at hand?

On Tue, 31 May 2011 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Country wrote:

On May 30, 11:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:00:30 -0500, dpb wrote:
On 5/30/2011 8:27 PM, wrote:

The '77 olds was an older design. *They weren't awful, though they did have
quality problems too. *Most of the '70s was lost on Detroit.

84 Olds is still on the road part time w/ a friend in TN

'84ish was when Detroit was finally waking up. *Though they were still
rustbuckets. *Inbetween was a pile of crap.


My Father-in-law bought one of those late 1970's Olds 98 Diesel, I
forget the exact year of the thing. That car spent a lot of time on
the end of a tow truck headed for the dealer.

The detroit diesels were (in)famous for being bait (swinging from the hook).
Remember the Caddie V8-6-4? There was another winner.

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:09:33 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:06:28 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:7dydnbwwQ93jkXnQnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews. com...

"harry" wrote in message

m...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...uto.html?_r=1&
src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpa ges%2Fbusiness%2Fi
ndex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit built
small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair. Then the
Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold many
of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's.
Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not any better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None of them
made it to 80,000 miles.

American cars are getting much better. Well, Chrysler still makes
junk (and you couldn't give me a GM). I've had one AMC (Gremlin),
four Fords, and four Chryslers. All have made it to 80K, except the
Gremlin (no need to explain) and the '74 Rustang II that followed it
(no need to explain there, either). The '78 Granada made 140K and 14
years before I gave the rusted hulk away. That was followed by two
Chrysler minivans, both made 80K, but not much longer, and two
Intrepid class cars, also junk. I now have two Fords, a '00 Sable
(100K) and an '01 Ranger (90K). Both will easily go another three or
four years. I'll replace the Sable as soon as we get the house paid
off, but not because it'll need it - SHMBO wants a Mustang
Convertible. ;-)

The last one was a 74 GM product and I had to put two timing
gears in it and the transmission went out at 75,000. I have only
bought Toyotas for the last several cars. One went 100,000 with only
standard maint. Traded it off for a Camry and put 190,000 on it and
only changed one sensor. Just put tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000
and no unscheduled maint.

Your experience is just with the '70s and '80s cars, then.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go American than
he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is junk,
I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the 100 million
plus dollars a year for doing it

It's not junk, though. It certainly *was*, but that was more than 20
years back.

don't forget that many "American" autos are made in Mexico or Canada,and
have LESS US domestic content than Hondas,Toyotas,or Nissans.

Or Kia, Huyndai, Mercedes and just about everyone else.

On Jun 1, 12:33*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:09:33 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:06:28 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:7dydnbwwQ93jkXnQnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews. com...

"harry" wrote in message

m...
Heh Heh. *Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...uto.html?_r=1&
src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpa ges%2Fbusiness%2Fi
ndex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. *Detroit built
small car back in the 60's. *I liked my '62 Corvair. *Then the
Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold many
of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's.
Just none of them were any good. *The larger ones were not any better.

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message

.c om ...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were
fifty years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...30auto.html?_r
=1 &s
rc=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpag es%2Fbusiness%2
Fi nd ex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit
built small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair. Then
the Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold
many of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's.
Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not any
better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None of
them
made it to 80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I
had to put two timing gears in it and the transmission went out at
75,000. I have only bought Toyotas for the last several cars.
One went 100,000 with only standard maint. Traded it off for a
Camry and put 190,000 on it and only changed one sensor. Just put
tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled maint.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go American
than he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is
junk, I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the 100
million plus dollars a year for doing it
.





How many Pintos and Vegas do you see around these days,as
"antiques"? You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They
were all crap.

I see a *lot* of vintage Mustangs. 64-1/2 models are quite valuable
and they aren't that rare. There is more to a valuable vintage car
than age.

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.

Wrong.

No,RIGHT. Mustangs were never intended to be "economy" cars until the
Mustang II came out. they were -sporty- cars,AKA "pony cars".

It had a V-8.

Wrong. It came with either a small V-8 (289CID) or straight-6
(200CID).

Actually,the first Stang V-8 was a 260 CID. the 289 came later.

from Wiki;

Several changes were made at the traditional opening of the new model year
(beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights on some
models, the introduction of alternators to replace generators, and an
upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in (4.3 l) to 289 cu in (4.7 l)
displacement. In the case of at least some six-cylinder Mustangs fitted
with the 101 hp (75 kW) 170 cu in (2.8 l) Falcon engine, the rush into
production included some unusual quirks, such as a horn ring bearing the
'Ford Falcon' logo beneath a trim ring emblazoned with 'Ford Mustang.'
These characteristics made enough difference to warrant designation of the
121,538 earlier ones as "1964½" model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has
endured with purists.[28]

The very first ones were also firetraps,worse than the Pintos.
there was no metal barrier between the fuel tank and the passenger
compartment,any rear end collision resulted in the fuel filler
breaking and gas spilled into the trunk and passenger compartment.

As was posted elsewhere, it was a *Falcon* with a pretty face. It
was still a nice car. ;-)

the Mustang IIs economy cars of the 70's were recognized as junk.
Later,Ford "redesigned" the Mustang to bring the pony car back closer
to the original. It was actually a whole new car platform,not related
to the Mustang II.

What relevance does any of this have to the topic at hand?


We -were- talking about American junky small cars,at their beginning.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On May 31, 3:47*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Hi,
I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good
design when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.
Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher
wages and benefits not improving their workmanship. As a result GM and
Chrysler almost went belly up.

Only detriment The UAW had was making the cars cost more than
otherwise.

Like that's a small thing? The UAW workers were getting about 2x
what workers at non-union auto manufacturers earned in wages
and benefits.


You might argue the bean counters cut quality to accommodate the union
costs, but that was their call.
Union didn't design the cars or oversee quality control.
That's all management.

I wouldn't be so sure about the quality control part. If you
have inflexible union rules, I can see it affecting quality. I
have two guys doing X. I want to reassign one of them
so he does both A and B, which would improve quality
Union rules say no way.



Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?

Camaro, Corvette, Impala, Malibu, Regal come to mind

Nothing.
Toyota/Honda made decent models, grew a brand recognition, and
protected the brand with quality.
The GM mentality kind a reminds me that exec who came out with "new"
Coke.

--Vic

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 31, 3:47Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:


Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?

Camaro, Corvette, Impala, Malibu, Regal come to mind


None compare.
Impala is full size and the name was dropped for some years.
Malibu is another name without continuous service.
Camaro and Vette aren't "family" cars. Niche.
Regal is high-end.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord have been the bread and butter of
Toyota/Honda for more than 25 years.
Family midsize and compact.
GM has nothing to compare in sales figures and model longevity.
Until the "new" Malibu the GM counterparts were the Chevrolet
Cavalier/Corsica, Celebrity/Lumina and their Pontiac/Buick/Olds
siblings.
The 1986 Celebrity was the best selling car in the U.S that year.
It was improved until 1989, then dropped.
Replaced with the Lumina, early ones with problematic rear disk
brakes, and all with dicey intake manifolds gaskets on the 3.1.
I just replaced the intake manifold gasket with the improved gasket on
my '97 as a precaution.
The Lumina is a good car besides the known gasket issue.
But 2001 was its last year.
The Malibu is upsized to fill the hole. The Malibu name was brought
back from the dead in '97.
In the meantime the Cobalt came and went and now there's the Cruze.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord brings back buyers to Toyota/Honda.
Old names that speak "quality."
You can blame GM's failure to do the same on the unions if you want.
Easy target, but I don't let management slide a bit.
Looks like GM is coming back.
Hard to project future sales, but the Malibu stays strong and the
Cruze appears to be doing well in its initiation.
Here's one version of 2010 sales.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...merica_04.html
#1 Toyota Camry 327,804 356,824
#2 Honda Accord 311,381 290,056
#3 Toyota Corolla/Matrix 266,082 296,874
#4 Honda Civic 260,218 259,722
#5 Nissan Altima 229,263 203,568
#6 Ford Fusion 219,219 180,671
#7 Chevrolet Malibu 198,770 161,568
#8 Hyundai Sonata 196,623 120,028
#9 Ford Focus 172,421 160,433
#10 Chevrolet Impala 172,078 165,565

See the top four? That's what I mean when I say GM has nothing to
compare. That might change, and it might not.

--Vic

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:17:37 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message

.c om ...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were
fifty years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...30auto.html?_r
=1 &s
rc=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpag es%2Fbusiness%2
Fi nd ex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit
built small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair. Then
the Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold
many of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's.
Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not any
better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None of
them
made it to 80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I
had to put two timing gears in it and the transmission went out at
75,000. I have only bought Toyotas for the last several cars.
One went 100,000 with only standard maint. Traded it off for a
Camry and put 190,000 on it and only changed one sensor. Just put
tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled maint.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go American
than he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is
junk, I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the 100
million plus dollars a year for doing it
.





How many Pintos and Vegas do you see around these days,as
"antiques"? You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They
were all crap.

I see a *lot* of vintage Mustangs. 64-1/2 models are quite valuable
and they aren't that rare. There is more to a valuable vintage car
than age.

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.

Wrong.

No,RIGHT. Mustangs were never intended to be "economy" cars until the
Mustang II came out. they were -sporty- cars,AKA "pony cars".

Bull****. My brother paid $2K for his 64-1/2. It wasn't an expensive "sports
car". The Mustang-II came after it had been bloated into a full-sized whale.

It had a V-8.

Wrong. It came with either a small V-8 (289CID) or straight-6
(200CID).

Actually,the first Stang V-8 was a 260 CID. the 289 came later.

My brother had a '64-1/2 200CID and (his wife) a 289CID '65.

from Wiki;

Several changes were made at the traditional opening of the new model year
(beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights on some
models, the introduction of alternators to replace generators, and an
upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in (4.3 l) to 289 cu in (4.7 l)
displacement. In the case of at least some six-cylinder Mustangs fitted
with the 101 hp (75 kW) 170 cu in (2.8 l) Falcon engine, the rush into
production included some unusual quirks, such as a horn ring bearing the
'Ford Falcon' logo beneath a trim ring emblazoned with 'Ford Mustang.'
These characteristics made enough difference to warrant designation of the
121,538 earlier ones as "1964½" model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has
endured with purists.[28]

The point is that you were wrong. It did come with either a V-8 or I-6.

The very first ones were also firetraps,worse than the Pintos.
there was no metal barrier between the fuel tank and the passenger
compartment,any rear end collision resulted in the fuel filler
breaking and gas spilled into the trunk and passenger compartment.

As was posted elsewhere, it was a *Falcon* with a pretty face. It
was still a nice car. ;-)

the Mustang IIs economy cars of the 70's were recognized as junk.
Later,Ford "redesigned" the Mustang to bring the pony car back closer
to the original. It was actually a whole new car platform,not related
to the Mustang II.

What relevance does any of this have to the topic at hand?


We -were- talking about American junky small cars,at their beginning.

The Mustang-II was not "at their beginning". It came out almost a decade
later.

On 6/1/2011 6:01 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 31, 3:47Â pm, Vic wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony
wrote:


Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?

Camaro, Corvette, Impala, Malibu, Regal come to mind


None compare.
Impala is full size and the name was dropped for some years.
Malibu is another name without continuous service.
Camaro and Vette aren't "family" cars. Niche.
Regal is high-end.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord have been the bread and butter of
Toyota/Honda for more than 25 years.
Family midsize and compact.
GM has nothing to compare in sales figures and model longevity.
Until the "new" Malibu the GM counterparts were the Chevrolet
Cavalier/Corsica, Celebrity/Lumina and their Pontiac/Buick/Olds
siblings.
The 1986 Celebrity was the best selling car in the U.S that year.
It was improved until 1989, then dropped.
Replaced with the Lumina, early ones with problematic rear disk
brakes, and all with dicey intake manifolds gaskets on the 3.1.
I just replaced the intake manifold gasket with the improved gasket on
my '97 as a precaution.
The Lumina is a good car besides the known gasket issue.
But 2001 was its last year.
The Malibu is upsized to fill the hole. The Malibu name was brought
back from the dead in '97.
In the meantime the Cobalt came and went and now there's the Cruze.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord brings back buyers to Toyota/Honda.
Old names that speak "quality."
You can blame GM's failure to do the same on the unions if you want.
Easy target, but I don't let management slide a bit.
Looks like GM is coming back.
Hard to project future sales, but the Malibu stays strong and the
Cruze appears to be doing well in its initiation.
Here's one version of 2010 sales.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...merica_04.html
#1 Toyota Camry 327,804 356,824
#2 Honda Accord 311,381 290,056
#3 Toyota Corolla/Matrix 266,082 296,874
#4 Honda Civic 260,218 259,722
#5 Nissan Altima 229,263 203,568
#6 Ford Fusion 219,219 180,671
#7 Chevrolet Malibu 198,770 161,568
#8 Hyundai Sonata 196,623 120,028
#9 Ford Focus 172,421 160,433
#10 Chevrolet Impala 172,078 165,565

See the top four? That's what I mean when I say GM has nothing to
compare. That might change, and it might not.

--Vic

First time I saw the current (soon to be replaced) Malibu, I immediately
was reminded of my trusty 99 Accord. Same profile and look, about the
same size, etc. I wonder if one of the GM designers owned one? (IMHO,
the 98-02 Accord was the last decent looking one- the next gen model
looked like it had a fat ass, and adopted the then-trendy high beltline
look. To my eye, the current gen just looks bizarre.)

--
aem sends...

On 5/30/2011 10:32 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"RonB" wrote in message
...
On May 30, 5:35 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Ralph Mowery" wrote
:





"Ed Pawlowski" wrote

You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They were all crap.

--
Corvairs are easy to find. Just follow the trail of oil :^}

That is not sour grapes either. I rebuilt a '65 back in the early
90's and it was a great little car and fun to drive. But getting
those two halves of the engine to stop dripping was frustrating. It
really didn't require a whole lot of oil to be added - it was always
wet underneath. Standard equipment for early Corvair owners was a
large piece of cardboard for the garage floor.

RonB

Funny, but oil leaking was one problem I did not have. I put a clamping
accessory on the valve covers that spread the force and it was cured.
OTOH, I've had motor mounts break, generator bracket broke (twice), heat
would not shut off unless you blocked the vents. Fun car to drive
though, it was a Monza with red bucket seats.

Too bad they didn't copy the Porsche/VW design more closely. I like
Corvairs, and think if GM hadn't wimped out to Nader, the Gen III model
would have been great. But it was always clearly a Porsche/VW clone.

--
aem sends...

On 5/30/2011 9:27 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:14:52 -0400, Kurt wrote:

In ,
"Ralph wrote:

"Ed wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...l?_r=1&src=un&
feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fb usiness%2Findex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit built small
car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair. Then the Pinto, Chevette,
Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just never sold many of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the 60's. Just
none of them were any good. The larger ones were not any better. I had a
Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None of them made it to
80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I had to put two timing
gears in it and the transmission went out at 75,000. I have only bought
Toyotas for the last several cars. One went 100,000 with only standard
maint. Traded it off for a Camry and put 190,000 on it and only changed one
sensor. Just put tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled
maint.

My Chevette lasted for over 20 years. It was the only car my
brother-in-law has ever had that he wasn't able to completely destroy
within 2 years. Took him 6 after I had already had it for 14. Except for
the hole in the floor board where I keep my heal when I am driving, it
was in great shape.

The brakes weren't so good, eh? ;-)


IIRC, Chevette was basically a US build of an Izuzu cross-bred with
some Opel bits. GM's first attempt at a 'world car' platform.

They were what they were- econoboxes that weren't that bad
engineering-wise, but suffered greatly from bloat caused by trying to
make them quiet and mushy to suit US tastes. (at least as GM perceived
them).

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2011 6:01 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 31, 3:47Â pm, Vic wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony
wrote:


Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?

Camaro, Corvette, Impala, Malibu, Regal come to mind


None compare.
Impala is full size and the name was dropped for some years.
Malibu is another name without continuous service.
Camaro and Vette aren't "family" cars. Niche.
Regal is high-end.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord have been the bread and butter of
Toyota/Honda for more than 25 years.
Family midsize and compact.
GM has nothing to compare in sales figures and model longevity.
Until the "new" Malibu the GM counterparts were the Chevrolet
Cavalier/Corsica, Celebrity/Lumina and their Pontiac/Buick/Olds
siblings.
The 1986 Celebrity was the best selling car in the U.S that year.
It was improved until 1989, then dropped.
Replaced with the Lumina, early ones with problematic rear disk
brakes, and all with dicey intake manifolds gaskets on the 3.1.
I just replaced the intake manifold gasket with the improved gasket on
my '97 as a precaution.
The Lumina is a good car besides the known gasket issue.
But 2001 was its last year.
The Malibu is upsized to fill the hole. The Malibu name was brought
back from the dead in '97.
In the meantime the Cobalt came and went and now there's the Cruze.
Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord brings back buyers to Toyota/Honda.
Old names that speak "quality."
You can blame GM's failure to do the same on the unions if you want.
Easy target, but I don't let management slide a bit.
Looks like GM is coming back.
Hard to project future sales, but the Malibu stays strong and the
Cruze appears to be doing well in its initiation.
Here's one version of 2010 sales.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...merica_04.html
#1 Toyota Camry 327,804 356,824
#2 Honda Accord 311,381 290,056
#3 Toyota Corolla/Matrix 266,082 296,874
#4 Honda Civic 260,218 259,722
#5 Nissan Altima 229,263 203,568
#6 Ford Fusion 219,219 180,671
#7 Chevrolet Malibu 198,770 161,568
#8 Hyundai Sonata 196,623 120,028
#9 Ford Focus 172,421 160,433
#10 Chevrolet Impala 172,078 165,565

See the top four? That's what I mean when I say GM has nothing to
compare. That might change, and it might not.

--Vic

First time I saw the current (soon to be replaced) Malibu, I immediately
was reminded of my trusty 99 Accord. Same profile and look, about the
same size, etc. I wonder if one of the GM designers owned one? (IMHO,
the 98-02 Accord was the last decent looking one- the next gen model
looked like it had a fat ass, and adopted the then-trendy high beltline
look. To my eye, the current gen just looks bizarre.)

I agree. I liked the lines of my 1990 Prelude but later versions took on
that high-butt design that probably held more cargo but looked chopped off
like a badly docked dog's tail.

The PT Cruiser showed that there's a market for retro and/or eye catching
designs. Jaguar could probably bring back the XK-E and built it so that it
not only looked good, but actually ran reliably.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

The PT Cruiser showed that there's a market for retro and/or eye catching
designs.

Kudos to Chrysler for some original thinking, but that one was a little
too odd to last long. Started appearing dated after about six months. My
favorite design of late is their 300, though. One of the best looking
cars since the mid 90's Cadillac Seville.

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:17:37 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message

ps .c om ...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were
fifty years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...y/30auto.html?
_r =1 &s
rc=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpag es%2Fbusiness
%2 Fi nd ex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit
built small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair.
Then the Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just
never sold many of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the
60's. Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not
any better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None
of them
made it to 80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I
had to put two timing gears in it and the transmission went out
at 75,000. I have only bought Toyotas for the last several
cars. One went 100,000 with only standard maint. Traded it off
for a Camry and put 190,000 on it and only changed one sensor.
Just put tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled
maint.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go
American than he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is
junk, I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the
100 million plus dollars a year for doing it
.





How many Pintos and Vegas do you see around these days,as
"antiques"? You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They
were all crap.

I see a *lot* of vintage Mustangs. 64-1/2 models are quite
valuable and they aren't that rare. There is more to a valuable
vintage car than age.

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.

Wrong.

No,RIGHT. Mustangs were never intended to be "economy" cars until the
Mustang II came out. they were -sporty- cars,AKA "pony cars".

Bull****. My brother paid $2K for his 64-1/2. It wasn't an expensive
"sports car".

Who was talking about "expense"?
"economy" is gas mileage and compact size.
What made the Mustang so popular was it's sportiness. Same as today. People
didn't buy them for their fuel economy,and they still don't today.

The Mustang-II came after it had been bloated into a
full-sized whale.

You have a screwy idea of what is a "whale",particularly "full-size"
whales.(redundant)
the Mustang II was a SMALL car,although heavier than the earlier Mustang.
Nobody would call any Mustang a "whale". that's a term used for actual
full-size cars.


It had a V-8.

Wrong. It came with either a small V-8 (289CID) or straight-6
(200CID).

Actually,the first Stang V-8 was a 260 CID. the 289 came later.

My brother had a '64-1/2 200CID and (his wife) a 289CID '65.

from Wiki;

Several changes were made at the traditional opening of the new model
year (beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights
on some models, the introduction of alternators to replace generators,
and an upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in (4.3 l) to 289 cu in
(4.7 l) displacement. In the case of at least some six-cylinder
Mustangs fitted with the 101 hp (75 kW) 170 cu in (2.8 l) Falcon
engine, the rush into production included some unusual quirks, such as
a horn ring bearing the 'Ford Falcon' logo beneath a trim ring
emblazoned with 'Ford Mustang.' These characteristics made enough
difference to warrant designation of the 121,538 earlier ones as
"1964½" model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has endured with
purists.[28]

The point is that you were wrong. It did come with either a V-8 or
I-6.

Few of them came with the I-6.


The very first ones were also firetraps,worse than the Pintos.
there was no metal barrier between the fuel tank and the passenger
compartment,any rear end collision resulted in the fuel filler
breaking and gas spilled into the trunk and passenger compartment.

As was posted elsewhere, it was a *Falcon* with a pretty face. It
was still a nice car. ;-)

the Mustang IIs economy cars of the 70's were recognized as junk.
Later,Ford "redesigned" the Mustang to bring the pony car back
closer to the original. It was actually a whole new car platform,not
related to the Mustang II.

What relevance does any of this have to the topic at hand?


We -were- talking about American junky small cars,at their beginning.

The Mustang-II was not "at their beginning". It came out almost a
decade later.


At the beginning of "Detroit's" venture into making small,"economy" cars to
compete with Japanese and European small cars.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article , "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

I liked my '62 Corvair.

That two-speed automatic transmission was, even for that vintage, one for the
ages.

Art

"Arthur Shapiro" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

I liked my '62 Corvair.

That two-speed automatic transmission was, even for that vintage, one for
the
ages.

Art

The automatic was a dog, but I had the 4 speed manual. There was a block
that you could buy to lessen the shift stroke. Made it much more fun to
drive.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:33:59 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:17:37 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message

ps .c om ...
Heh Heh. Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were
fifty years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...y/30auto.html?
_r =1 &s
rc=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpag es%2Fbusiness
%2 Fi nd ex.jsonp

.

The car makers are not catching up, the consumer is. Detroit
built small car back in the 60's. I liked my '62 Corvair.
Then the Pinto, Chevette, Horizon, Vega, etc, but they just
never sold many of them.

The American cars did have the small cars as far back as the
60's. Just none of them were any good. The larger ones were not
any better.
I had a Ford , 3 Chrysler products , and 2 GM products. None
of them
made it to 80,000 miles. The last one was a 74 GM product and I
had to put two timing gears in it and the transmission went out
at 75,000. I have only bought Toyotas for the last several
cars. One went 100,000 with only standard maint. Traded it off
for a Camry and put 190,000 on it and only changed one sensor.
Just put tires on a Tacoma truck at 45,000 and no unscheduled
maint.

Glad RonB's wife has a better memory as to why not to go
American than he seemed to.

I hate to buy from another country,but if the American stuff is
junk, I am not about to help the big wheels in the US make the
100 million plus dollars a year for doing it
.





How many Pintos and Vegas do you see around these days,as
"antiques"? You do see a few Corvairs,but none of the others. They
were all crap.

I see a *lot* of vintage Mustangs. 64-1/2 models are quite
valuable and they aren't that rare. There is more to a valuable
vintage car than age.

the first Mustangs were a sports car,not an economy car.

Wrong.

No,RIGHT. Mustangs were never intended to be "economy" cars until the
Mustang II came out. they were -sporty- cars,AKA "pony cars".

Bull****. My brother paid $2K for his 64-1/2. It wasn't an expensive
"sports car".

Who was talking about "expense"?

Ah, so price has nothing to do with economics. I see.

"economy" is gas mileage and compact size.

The '64.5 was pretty compact. It *was* a Falcon. The 6-banger did pretty
well in the gas mileage area, at least for the times, too.

What made the Mustang so popular was it's sportiness.

But it *was* an econo-box with a pretty face. That changed pretty quickly,
though.

Same as today. People
didn't buy them for their fuel economy,and they still don't today.

They bought it because it was cheap and small, though.

The Mustang-II came after it had been bloated into a
full-sized whale.

You have a screwy idea of what is a "whale",particularly "full-size"
whales.(redundant)
the Mustang II was a SMALL car,although heavier than the earlier Mustang.
Nobody would call any Mustang a "whale". that's a term used for actual
full-size cars.

You're having trouble with your reading comprehension, again. I didn't say
the M-II was a whale. I said it "came *AFTER* it (the Mustang) had been
bloated into a full-sized whale".

It had a V-8.

Wrong. It came with either a small V-8 (289CID) or straight-6
(200CID).

Actually,the first Stang V-8 was a 260 CID. the 289 came later.

My brother had a '64-1/2 200CID and (his wife) a 289CID '65.

from Wiki;

Several changes were made at the traditional opening of the new model
year (beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights
on some models, the introduction of alternators to replace generators,
and an upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in (4.3 l) to 289 cu in
(4.7 l) displacement. In the case of at least some six-cylinder
Mustangs fitted with the 101 hp (75 kW) 170 cu in (2.8 l) Falcon
engine, the rush into production included some unusual quirks, such as
a horn ring bearing the 'Ford Falcon' logo beneath a trim ring
emblazoned with 'Ford Mustang.' These characteristics made enough
difference to warrant designation of the 121,538 earlier ones as
"1964½" model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has endured with
purists.[28]

The point is that you were wrong. It did come with either a V-8 or
I-6.

Few of them came with the I-6.

Bull****. Attempt to move goalposts noted.


The very first ones were also firetraps,worse than the Pintos.
there was no metal barrier between the fuel tank and the passenger
compartment,any rear end collision resulted in the fuel filler
breaking and gas spilled into the trunk and passenger compartment.

As was posted elsewhere, it was a *Falcon* with a pretty face. It
was still a nice car. ;-)

the Mustang IIs economy cars of the 70's were recognized as junk.
Later,Ford "redesigned" the Mustang to bring the pony car back
closer to the original. It was actually a whole new car platform,not
related to the Mustang II.

What relevance does any of this have to the topic at hand?


We -were- talking about American junky small cars,at their beginning.

The Mustang-II was not "at their beginning". It came out almost a
decade later.


At the beginning of "Detroit's" venture into making small,"economy" cars to
compete with Japanese and European small cars.

More bull****. What about the Maverick and even the, by then, ancient Falcon?

On 6/2/2011 4:37 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In ,
"Robert wrote:

The PT Cruiser showed that there's a market for retro and/or eye catching
designs.

Kudos to Chrysler for some original thinking, but that one was a little
too odd to last long. Started appearing dated after about six months. My
favorite design of late is their 300, though. One of the best looking
cars since the mid 90's Cadillac Seville.

After the slick H-body cars they had been producing, it looked like a
corny retro show car to me. Feels like a bathtub from inside, crappy
visibility, etc. Yes I understand the bottom side engineering is good,
being Mercedes-derived, but the 300/Charger/Magnum all look affected and
ugly to me. Form should follow function.

--
aem sends...

"Charlie" wrote in message ...


You have to learn to ignore harried Harry. He's been ****ed of eversinc a
rowdy bunch of expats told jolly old King George to sod off.

You got that right. Harry would crawl over broken glass and then pour lemon
juice over his wounds if it meant he'd get a chance to **** and moan about
the U.S., it's an obsession with him.

"RonB" wrote in message
...


And THIS is the generation problem I mentioned above. In spite of
knowing the newer domestics are probably a lot better. My memory is
almost as good has her's

Detroit has produced its share of lemons, but so have the Brits and the
Germans and everybody else who ever made cars. My wife once owned a VW with
an aluminum-alloy engine block that fell apart in 20k miles, how's that for
German engineering? How many *old* Honda Civics do you see on the road, or
for that matter how many British sports cars that aren't owned by fanatics
with their own set of tools and a membership in a club of other fanatics who
can help them keep their ride running?

On the other hand my last three vehicles have been Fords (highest domestic
content of any auto maker--80%+) and they have been close to trouble-free.
So carrying a knife for Detroit long after they turned the corner on quality
seems a pointless chore--I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Ford.

On 6/3/2011 9:59 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
z wrote in
:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:33:59 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:17:37 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim
wrote:

"Ralph wrote in
:


"Ed wrote in message
...

wrote in message

(snip)

Few of them came with the I-6.

Bull****. Attempt to move goalposts noted.

NOT BS,nor moving goalposts. The I-6 option was to lower it's price,not for
better fuel economy,which was the reason for "econo-boxes" in the early
1970's. The I-6 was more a rarity than common.


I don't have numbers handy, but IIRC the main reason for dealer stock of
straight-6 gen I mustangs (aka 'secretarial' versions, in the sexist
vernacular of of the day) wasn't to have an entry-level model to trumpet
the price point in ads- it was because they couldn't get enough
small-blocks fast enough to keep the line running. Remember, the 260/289
was Ford's bread and butter v8, used in almost all models. And the
bigger heavier cars, if you put a six in them, you couldn't give them
away. The Mustang was 'cute', and for many people, that was enough- they
didn't really care about how fast it went.

--
aem sends...

On May 30, 3:49*pm, harry wrote:
Heh Heh. *Finally catches up with where Europe and Japan were fifty
years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...to.html?_r=1&s....

.

You mean Flintstone mobiles run on hemp fuel?
NYT is ****sky.

On May 30, 3:58*pm, dpb wrote:
On 5/30/2011 2:49 PM, harry wrote:
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/...

Requires signup; sorry...no will do.

--

NYT is ****sky jew

On May 30, 5:28*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ....
On 5/30/2011 2:49 PM, harry wrote:
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/...

Requires signup; sorry...no will do.

--

worked OK for me.

You are a wall street stooge