On 2/13/2017 1:30 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:22 -0500, Jack wrote:

If a topic is popular, naturally it will garner
plenty of response.

Agreed. But on the Sawstop topic it's mostly the same 5-10 posters
who've been obsessing on the issue since the beginning. According to
Google, there have been 164 posts by only 17 authors. 'Nuff said?

I think you'll find it common for less than 17 people participating in
any given thread. I might add most of the threads seem to be started by
the Comet, who those 17 people seem to hate because he doesn't punctuate
to their liking...

It was a lie then, because it
wasn't really about the bandwidth, it was a control freak issue, just as
it is today.

My wife and friends got a good laugh out of that one! If there are any
control freaks here, it's the ones who decry or defend the ethics of the
Sawstop founder.

Don't see how that's a control issue, but OK.

But you've convinced me that I'm ****ing into the wind. So I'll stop.

Well, the topic has evolved away from sawstop and into other topics. I
too was not very interested in the sawstop issue for the same reason you
pointed out, but found some vague interest in it's off topic evolution.

Off topic evolution is another control freak issue some try to control,
but can't. Myself, if I'm interested enough, I might participate.
Otherwise I don't. Simple.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.

On 2/14/2017 9:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 2/12/2017 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:

I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston
requires for yard waste. they are patented and required by the
city if you are going to throw away yard waste.

While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that
has to be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to
throw yard refuse away.

I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking.
Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically
marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of
petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse
use in Houston.

Well a reasonable person would assume that.

Actually, I disagree. It's quite clear that a bag designed
for yard-waste would need to be made from a substance that
will quickly break down into environmentally benign
byproducts. That precludes petroleum-based bags.

I actually was referring that any one should be able to make the bag
like the city wants. But the city approved poiduct is so substandard
that no reputable company would want to put their names on it.


IIRC the bags had a patent
pending number, had a seal, Approved by the city of Houston.

Yard waste, right? They compost it, so the bags must also
be compostable.

Yes, but the bag does not really need to decompose faster than the
contents. These bags are not totally unlike the thin produce bags that
you find in the grocery to bag your vegetables. Ultra thin. There are
many other brand non approved bags that are stronger and specifically
designed to decompose. And just to state again, the approved bags must
not get wet as their decomposition begins immediately with the presence
of moisture. If they set out side for more than a day or two they will
come apart.





There
were/are several other heavier/thicker mil recycleable refuse bags
available and much less expensive. But if you used those bags a warning
label was attached and the bag was not picked up.

Of course, since they'd contaminate the compost.

Maybe not. I don't think paper bags would contaminate yard trash.



The really unfortunate thing about the city of Housotn bags was that
they were so thin that the humidity/condensation would cause them to
begin melting from sitting out for just one one night and totally forget
it it rained.

The bags are designed to be biodegradable.


Understood, but they have to last at least a few days and hold more than
2 bushels.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:55:40 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
There is no excuse not to use break lines that don't rust. Exhaust
system were/are notorious rusters when made of steel. They rust from
the inside because of all the crap, including water expelled from the
engine, and laying in the pipes. Break lines don't have to battle all
that crap and could easily be made not to rust for the life of the car.

Between the brake lines rusting and the ABS braking system failing
repeatedly, GM should have been sued out of business. BTW, it only cost
$700 to have all the brake lines replaced on that truck, and that was a
few years ago, and at a garage, not a dealer. Would have been more at
the dealer.

My daughter and son both had Chevy Cavaliers in college and brake lines
rusted out on both cars. I've been driving for 56 years and never
replaced brake lines until this GM truck and the two Cavaliers my kids
had. That's 3 for 3... good job there GM. Our screwed up government
fines VW a $billion or more for fudging MPG on a few cars, but could
care less that the brakes on GM products SUCK big time.

My brother has a '95 Ford truck and brake lines are fine. GM is a no
sale for me and my family. My wife has a VS Passat, my daughter a Ford
and Son a VW Jetta I think it is. If I ever buy another truck, it will
be a Ford, or a Toyota, leaning towards the Toyota although the aluminum
Ford sounds rust free, something I would like a lot.
Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

On 2/14/2017 3:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago -

The catalytic converters in question were from the mid 70's, not current
ones. And it was soon after that the exhaust systems were maid from
stainless steel.

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?

In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:04:21 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/14/2017 3:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago -

The catalytic converters in question were from the mid 70's, not current
ones. And it was soon after that the exhaust systems were maid from
stainless steel.


I'm aware of that.
I just said the guy who claimed the catalytic converters on cars,
and I quote: "make sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid
that eats metal." was wrong - and I explained why. I've worked on and
with emission controlled vehicles for quite some time - MOSTLY back in
the "mid seventies".

Actually, the biggest factor in extended exhaust life - as well as
engine life - in the last 100 years is the removal of tetraethyl lead
from motor fuels, just as the adittion of it to fuel was the single
greatest factor allowing the increase in performance previous to it's
removal.
Electronic engine controls made it possible to get the performance
without the lead.
Phosphorous was required to "purge" the lead and produced a lot of
corrosion causing waste products. - along with the sulphur.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:59:42 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

My Ranger's frame only made it through ten Vermont salt seasons and
three in the South (with just at half that distance driven). The
exhaust was still orignal but the brake lines went the year before the
frame.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:24:49 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

On 2/14/2017 9:03 PM, wrote:


I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.


I have heard that some brine solutions now used for road treatment have
been problematic with rust on cars. I don't know enough about it to
draw a conclusion.

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

That's not what the Ford owner's manual says,
but then I've never known a dealer service
department to actually perform the maintenance
that the book says to perform. I remember a
Jeep dealer giving me an argument when I asked
him to check the brakes. Maybe that was you,
did you ever work for Bolles Motors in
Ellington?

And are you a certified mechanic or just the
kind of "manager" who thinks that the manager
doesn't have to understand what his subordinates
do?

In article 0pd7ac9s88fnd0tnepj4ml6ke6thlogdao@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.

You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

That's not what my owners' manual says. However
I have never seen a dealer service department
actually DO all the maintenance items that are
called out in the book.

By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
just a pointy-haired boss?

In article MPG.330dfddc4a9f96c998aa11
@news.eternal-september.org, j.clarke.873638
@gmail.com says...

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

That's not what my owners' manual says. However
I have never seen a dealer service department
actually DO all the maintenance items that are
called out in the book.

By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
just a pointy-haired boss?

Sorry about the triple-post--my newsreader kept
crashing and I thought it wasn't sending.

On 2/15/2017 4:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.


If you look out your window and see your vehicle sitting in the drive
way and notice that it is dirty, did you just do maintenance. Your
owners manual probably says something about washing the vehicle to keep
it looking nice.

A visual inspection is not a maintenance procedure. It is simply
looking at it to see if there needs to be any maintenance.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:59:42 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.

On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:


I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.


https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur

Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:


I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.


https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur

Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.

Thanks

J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?


Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?

Bill

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.
Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
The hard lines are not mentioned.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:56:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

That's not what my owners' manual says. However
I have never seen a dealer service department
actually DO all the maintenance items that are
called out in the book.

By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
just a pointy-haired boss?
I am a certifiead auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
some were incredibly CHEAP.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:50:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 0pd7ac9s88fnd0tnepj4ml6ke6thlogdao@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.

You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?
Hey, I had this great deal offered to me (after I had left the
dealership) and I figured "what could it hurt" (other than my pride
and my wallet)? Last GM I had owned was a Chevy -'28 AB National, the
one before that a 35 Master, unless you count the '72 Vauxhaul.(which
was actually a pretty darn good car). Figured I'd give another GM a
try - '95 Pontiac TranSport.

BIG mistake.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:20:23 -0600, Markem
wrote:

SNIPPED

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.
Well, I guess you haven't looked, have you?

https://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/r...cfm?intReg=223

The Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Gasoline Regulations (the SiGR
Amendments) introduce lower limits on the sulphur content of gasoline,
from an average of 30 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, in alignment with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Tier 3 fuel
standards.

For an American source -

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
Sulfur is a natural component in crude oil that is present in gasoline
and diesel unless removed. Sulfur in gasoline impairs the
effectiveness of emission control systems and contributes to air
pollution. Reducing the sulfur content in gasoline enables advanced
emission controls and reduces air pollution.

The Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur program, finalized in 2000, reduced the
sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent, enabling the use of
new emission control technologies in cars and trucks that reduce
harmful air pollution. The Tier 2 program marked the first time EPA
treated vehicles and fuels as a system. The program grew out of a
Clean Air Act requirement that EPA consider the need, feasibility, and
cost-effectiveness of stronger tailpipe emission standards beginning
in 2004. Requirements for use of low-sulfur gasoline enabled use of
advanced emission control systems in cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans
beginning in model year 2004. Vehicles meeting Tier 2 emission
standards are 77 to 95 percent cleaner than earlier models.


Either check your facts or don't bother posting as if you "know"
anything.

Bill writes:
J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?


Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?

I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-) I've had
Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
held up very well with zero problems.

I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
incompetent.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?


Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?

Bill
For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
addressed, year after year. Add that to the FACT that it could not
(with a 3.8 liter engine) tow the trailer thar my previous Ford
Aerostar - which was significantly (well, over 100 lb) heavier, could
tow with a 3 liter with absolutely no problem.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Bill writes:
J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?

Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?
I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)

190 hp has served me well enough... : )

I've had
Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
held up very well with zero problems.

I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
incompetent.

Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
a "good value" list.
I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
interested, what bugs you about it?

Bill

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:00:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:20:23 -0600, Markem
wrote:

SNIPPED

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.
Well, I guess you haven't looked, have you?

Yep that is right.

Bill writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Bill writes:
J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?

Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?
I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)

190 hp has served me well enough... : )

I've had
Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
held up very well with zero problems.

I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
incompetent.

Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
a "good value" list.
I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
interested, what bugs you about it?


Oh, it's all little things. From the comfort standpoint, the
Colorado is a step up from the base-model Ranger that I had. I
was looking for a domestic manual transmission and the Colorado
was the -only- option at the time (although Chevy didn't offer
a regular cab, mine was as base-model is it was possible to get).

On the down side, the gearing ratios aren't designed for people who
use engine braking (second is too close to first and too far from
third - which is probably for those who like to start out in second).
The radio display/backup camera screen is too small. There is
a very annoying two-second delay between turning the volume knob
and detecting a change in the sound level. The daylight sensor that
switches the screen brightness is horrible - passing through the shadow
of an overpass will dim the screen to unreadability. The entertainment
system infrequently resets for no apparent reason. The UI is poor.

I had a regular cab on the Ranger, but the colorado has an extended cab
and the back end sits much higher than the front, which makes rear
visibility poor (when compared with the excellent visibility in the
ranger).

There were two recalls in the first eight months I had it (shifter
lever and hood latch). I'm not particularly happy with the dealership
either, they had to keep my truck for 24-hours to change the oil and
do the recalls (and they didn't do the hood-latch one because they
didn't have the part in stock). On the otherhand, they'll do two
oil changes for free during the first two years.

Just can't compare with my memories of the 1963 Impala with the 350
four-barrel.

I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.

On 2/15/2017 2:49 PM, wrote:

I am a certified auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
some were incredibly CHEAP.



The customers are not cheap, they just bought the most car that they
cannot afford. I've heard of repossessed luxury cars that never had an
oil change.

Then you have the dealer. Some get very high prices for routine repairs
and maintenance and try to sell services not needed. Of course there
are some sleazy independent shops too.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.

You motivated me to read about the "2019 Ranger" at Car and Driver.
What I found most interesting was the comments people posted. I found
it insightful to read about what people are looking for versus what is
available.

Cheers,
Bill

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:17:52 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bill writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Bill writes:
J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?

Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?
I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)

190 hp has served me well enough... : )

I've had
Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
held up very well with zero problems.

I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
incompetent.

Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
a "good value" list.
I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
interested, what bugs you about it?


Oh, it's all little things. From the comfort standpoint, the
Colorado is a step up from the base-model Ranger that I had. I
was looking for a domestic manual transmission and the Colorado
was the -only- option at the time (although Chevy didn't offer
a regular cab, mine was as base-model is it was possible to get).

On the down side, the gearing ratios aren't designed for people who
use engine braking (second is too close to first and too far from
third - which is probably for those who like to start out in second).
The radio display/backup camera screen is too small. There is
a very annoying two-second delay between turning the volume knob
and detecting a change in the sound level. The daylight sensor that
switches the screen brightness is horrible - passing through the shadow
of an overpass will dim the screen to unreadability. The entertainment
system infrequently resets for no apparent reason. The UI is poor.

I had a regular cab on the Ranger, but the colorado has an extended cab
and the back end sits much higher than the front, which makes rear
visibility poor (when compared with the excellent visibility in the
ranger).

There were two recalls in the first eight months I had it (shifter
lever and hood latch). I'm not particularly happy with the dealership
either, they had to keep my truck for 24-hours to change the oil and
do the recalls (and they didn't do the hood-latch one because they
didn't have the part in stock). On the otherhand, they'll do two
oil changes for free during the first two years.

Just can't compare with my memories of the 1963 Impala with the 350
four-barrel.

I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.
I'd rather drive my 21 year old Ranger than a new Colorado.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:31:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/15/2017 2:49 PM, wrote:

I am a certified auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
some were incredibly CHEAP.



The customers are not cheap, they just bought the most car that they
cannot afford. I've heard of repossessed luxury cars that never had an
oil change.

Then you have the dealer. Some get very high prices for routine repairs
and maintenance and try to sell services not needed. Of course there
are some sleazy independent shops too.
The CHEAP customers were generally those who had country-club
memberships - lawyers and Doctors and high-rollers were well
represented - but there were also a good percentage of "just average
guys" who didn't spare the cash where it "made them look good".
For some it was "i buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and I've never
had one fail on me yet".
They didn't get much for their trade-ins - and they usually ended up
at the Toronto Auto Auction - not on our lot.

On 2/15/2017 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?


Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?

Bill
For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
addressed, year after year.

I think number one on the list were blower motors when I was still in
the business, GM. Followed by alternators, and AC compressors.

On 2/15/2017 5:59 PM, wrote:

The CHEAP customers were generally those who had country-club
memberships - lawyers and Doctors and high-rollers were well
represented - but there were also a good percentage of "just average
guys" who didn't spare the cash where it "made them look good".
For some it was "i buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and I've never
had one fail on me yet".
They didn't get much for their trade-ins - and they usually ended up
at the Toronto Auto Auction - not on our lot.


That is a good bargaining point. When I bought my last car, the fourth
from the dealer, I had a good price but did not like the trade in money.
The salesman said "that is what we'll get at auction" I reminded him
my last trades were sold on their lot and this one would be too. He
upped the trade and we had a deal. Sometimes you do get a return on
maintenance costs.

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:43:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.
Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
The hard lines are not mentioned.

My state's Safety Inspection requirements includes this:

"All brake lines and hoses - check for leaks, cracks, chafing, restrictions,
and improper support"

Of course, it also includes this:

"Brake equalization - test vehicle for a straight stop without significant wheel pull."

I don't recall any vehicle I've ever had inspected being driven as part of the
inspection process.

On the other hand, I always have my vehicles inspected by one of my 2 trusted
indys who know that if the vehicle was pulling, I would have told them about it
long before it became a safety Inspection issue.