Ode to the full service gas station

[monster]

Originally Posted by Cloud

uh. wow.

AAA is totally worth it.

I think tw has a little crush on you....

[tw]

Requoted from classicman’s citation:

Normally an alignment will hold for 5,000-10,000 km

If true, then everyone spends $100 for wheel alignment during every oil change – every 3 months? Classicman’s proof is that? Nonsense. Who would be so stupid or foolish to waste money? One knows frequent $100 checks are required because some English major says so? Classicman recommends frequent alignments using same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. He knows only because others say so.

I asked classicman for his ‘whys’. Now obvious is why classicman promotes this myth. Camber and caster may not ‘hold’? Hold? What ‘unholds’ when no adjuster exists to move? Classicman knows only because others say so rather than asking a damn simple question. Where is that missing adjuster?

Every 7500 kilometers, align a non-existent adjuster to correct movement that cannot exist? Or align to bent parts? How foolish.

Classicman’s citation says why frequent $100 wheel alignment checks are wanton.

Symptoms of poor alignment are that the steering pulls to one side or that there is excessive wear on the inside or outside edges of the tire. If you are driving at low speed on straight and level ground, such as in an empty parking lot, and slowly release the steering wheel, your vehicle should continue to travel straight ahead.

How curious. tw said same. And if alignment is off, then defective parts are replaced. Do we align to bent or worn parts as classicman would recommend? Of course not. 107,000 miles on the original tires – and not one alignment. A 1980 car designed by 'car guys' did what is standard today on any properly designed vehicle.

Classicman’s post – the ‘whys’ - explains how he knows frequent $100 checks are necessary. Those 1950 ‘high failure’ vehicles that classicman has assumed no longer exist.

Cloud – ignore hyped fear from those who know only from myths. Also provides were symptoms that warn of problems without expensive $100 checking. Ie. fluid leaks, MPG numbers on every new tank of gas, moving car in a parking lot, Check Engine light, smoke, and routine inspection performed during each oil change. Expensive service plans, warranties, and $100 alignment checks every three months is not necessary with properly designed cars. A $100 alignment every 5000 kilometers? Is he that so naïve as to believe such people? This is why his reasons (supporting facts) were demanded. He does not know. He only reiterate what he reads. Another example of why ‘dirt under the fingernails’ is found where others learn.

Shawnee - some people just know without first learning facts. They should be challenged aggressively as any good persons would - bluntly. This is not a debate about cars. There is no debate where people have learned simple technology. Cars don't require all that complex knowledge and frequent maintenance. Exposed are thos who know only because others say so. Thousands of web citations somehow is proof? The same logic also proved Saddam's WMDs. A minimally standard car requires so little maintenance. That is not even debateable. Debated is how some just believe these myths - forget to first learn facts - believe everything read on the web - don't ask damning, blunt, and politically incorrect questions.

So where is that adjuster that needs $100 service every three months. Classicman cannot say. In the same place that George Jr put Saddam's WMDs.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I was simply offering my help to cloud and got lambasted for it

You got lambasted for posting without first learning. Then got lambasted again for knowning only because a thousand other posts somehow become factual proof. The lesson from Saddam's WMDs? Does not matter how many say so. Only facts and numbers are relevant; and experience that puts facts and numbers into perspective. You got lambasted for posting myths because you did not first learn the facts and then knew using the same reasoning that proved Saddam had WMDs.

Eliminate those myths and Cloud need not worry about a car - if the car is properly designed.

[classicman]

tw, pardon me, but you are simply wrong. You insinuate and infer things from my posts that are not there.

Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza or most likely Bah Humbug - whatever it is you celebrate,Tom I hope you have a nice one.

[Cloud]

and how does a layman determine if his or her car is "properly designed?" What if you simply have to deal with the car you own, design flaws and all?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Find someone with a car that has 300,000 miles on it, jump in your time machine, and go back and buy that car before they do.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Find someone with a car that has 300,000 miles on it, jump in your time machine, and go back and buy that car before they do.

Which reminds me, does anyone know how to check the oil on a time machine? And my temporomechanic says the Horologizing camber guides need aligning ... is he trying to con me? And I think the flux capacitor is on the blink, it makes a funny noise when I go around centuries...

[glatt]

So I pick our car up from the corner mechanic after my wife left it there for an oil change. I pay for the work and they say the keys are in the ignition. The car is parked in the far corner of the lot where the attendant can't see it, right next to the street and sidewalk. As I get closer, I realize not only is the door unlocked with the keys in the ignition, but the window is rolled down too. Now I know where to go when I need a new (used) car for free. WTF?

I imagine they would be liable for it if it were stolen, but damn.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Cloud

and how does a layman determine if his or her car is "properly designed?" What if you simply have to deal with the car you own, design flaws and all?

Simple, buy a Honda.

I've always felt that it's silly to buy a brand new car. It depreciates the second you drive it off the lot, for one thing. Better to get one at about 30,000 miles. Most new car "bugs" will have already been discovered, hopefully. For some, this isn't an issue, many have the dollars to deal with small repairs, but if you're counting on your car to not nickel and dime you to death, that's just my two cents. [/irrelevant opinion]

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

and how does a layman determine if his or her car is "properly designed?" What if you simply have to deal with the car you own, design flaws and all?

Consumer Reports makes it obvious. For example, their April issue (sometimes the most stolen issue) includes best recommended models. It also lists used cars by model and year - the best recommended AND the worst 'stay away from' models.

If the car is properly designed, then it has great value per buck, does not routinely fail, and ends up highly praised in sources that don't accept advertising. Any car that requires wheel alignment, fuel additives, or tune ups is akin to a break down on the highway.

If the source does have advertising and if the review is not overwhelming, then it is probably a car made by an automaker that should be bankrupt. For example, one Honda Accord review was critical of the interior color scheme. That is a raving positive review masked so as to not harm the advertising income. However one Consumer Report article was politically incorrect honest - the best type of people. Its title was "Oldsmobile Achieva is an Underachiever". Like all Oldsmobiles, it was one of the worst vehicles in America then.

In a rare bout of honesty, an LA Times auto reporter honestly described problems with GM products. Therefore GM executed a campaign of revenge to bankrupt the LA Times. The Wall Street Journal noted how WSJ had an investment fund just for such events because GM had also tried to do same to them. Note how anti-American all GM is. They are even spending massively on George Jr to pervert EPA standards - to even get the EPA to fight for inferior GM products that state governments want banned. Note an example of high failure vehicles designed by accountants and protected by people who so hate humanity as to buy their products. They will spend massively on politics and public propaganda rather than use technology.

The 70 HP per liter engine - developed in GM in 1972, ready for production in 1975, and still not available standard in all GM products.

That simple number is horsepower per liter. This silly little arithmetic is a massive precursor to better or worse vehicles. For fuel injection, it must do at least 70 HP per liter. Your 2.2 liter engine must produce as many or more horsepower than mid 1970s American 350 cubic inch (big block) V8 engines.

If turbo charged, 85. Supercharged - 100. For example, the GM supercharged vehicles (ie Pontiacs 'performance with attitude' or Chevy's Chevelle SS) are only 63 horsepower per liter. Their supercharged engines do not even do what is found in a Toyota Tercel. How more obvious is that GM product line problem. Is it properly designed - or does the company president not even drive.

Yes, that obvious. When Roger Smith of GM drove a first Saturn off the assembly line, car was modified so that Smith could not press the accelerator. Roger Smith, chairman of GM, could not drive. A problem often found where cars are not properly designed. A problem often not learned due to hype and myth (same sources that said Saddam had WMDs) rather than from learning facts.

Am I insulting here - or do I become blunt honest because I constantly go after the irrefutable fact. You will not get such knowledge from some others (ie classicman) when fundamental facts are ignored - ie numbers such as HP/liter.

Among the higher price vehicles are fuel injection numbers routinely in the 85 range. IOW these better cars have turbo charged performance without the turbo charger. Again, these numbers are damning. Again, these are the manufacturers who will have the better cars 10 and 20 years from now. The superior technology first appears in the luxury models. For example, why was the 1970 Porshe a high performance car? Its engine was 70 Hp/liter.

Automakers with inferior products would not put both horsepower and liter numbers on the stickers. You must be kept dumb and ignorant. They fear you might learn. Pickup trucks and SUVs are easily optimized for profit because so many customers are more enthralled with their penis then with the product. Manufacturers make them too high and install noisy, low performance (1968 technology) engines. Noted earlier are Jeeps designed so badly as to squeal tires even when turning into a parking slot. That 'more engine noise' enthralls those who do not think using their head. That 'more noise' makes the naive 'feel' it must be high performance.

How to identify a 'properly designed' and higher performance vehicle? It makes less noise. Why would you know the 5.0 Liter Mustang was one of the lowest performance (and high failure rate) vehicles? It made more noise. Why is it obvious that SUVs and pickups are so crappy? Just listen as it accelerates or climbs a hill.

Saturn is one of those noisy vehicles. But then Saturn was constantly fighting for and eventually surrendered their independence from GM. Ironically I recently found a Saturn that made so little noise. It is actually a Saab with a Saturn nameplate. Learned because I noticed that Saturn was so quiet – and then asked questions. Most everyone in the word makes vehicles superior to GM - even those auto companies bought by GM.

View Consumer Reports April issues for a list entitled "Used Cars The best & worst available". Notice which models and manufacturers end up on the "Vehicles to avoid" list year after year. If your list is honest, then Pontiac will appear often in a high failure category. But then that was so obvious on that less than 100 miles 1996 Pontiac that required steering wheel adjustments every 3 or less tar (expansion) strips on a concrete highway. Even those tar strips caused the inferior vehicle to wander.

Another simple method. Touch the accelerator. Car should accelerate gently and hardly at all. But some manufacturers have defective (low performance) engines. Give it a little gas; it won't go. Give it much more gas and it suddenly accelerates aggressively. This masks the defective engine and makes the naive 'feel' it is a high performance vehicle. In bumper to bumper traffic, see them constantly accelerating and braking. It will either accelerate too much or not accelerate at all to mask a defective engine.

The naive will stomp on an accelerator to see how good the car is. The informed will learn using almost no accelerator change. Superior cars with higher performance engines slowly and smoothly respond to every little accelerator change. Notice the difference between one who uses his penis verses the later who thinks with a brain.

Consumer Reports April 2007 issue includes a graph (in "Reliability trends") for problems per 100 vehicles verses years of vehicle. Lines represent eight automakers. Note which products have so many fewer problems - despite propaganda sometimes and recently hyped in the local news. GM cars, in particular, are so bad that any little improvement becomes a front page story.

The superior car routinely exceeds EPA highway mileage even in suburban driving. Just another reason why one records and calculates miles, gallons of gas, and MPG. MPG is a massive indicator of superior products AND can report an impending problem before that problem creates failure. Of course a bad driver or gas can also cause lower mileage. However cars designed by accountants are optimized for high mileage during the EPA test; not for higher mileage during normal driving.

Just a few ways to avoid problems before failure can happen. Just more reasons why maintenance is no longer a major consideration when owning a car. There are now so few things an owner/driver must do to maintain a car. And yes, as demonstrated in other posts, even the gasoline brand can also be important.

How to not constantly replace windshield wipers? Avoid the hype discount brands such as Trico. IOW if your automobile is from a responsible manufacturer, then wiper blades from the dealer may last four times longer. Blades will cost slightly more - which means significant monetary savings. Like gasoline, the lower price does not mean it is cheaper. More concepts learned by asking embarrassing and blunt questions - and by getting big eyes every time numbers are presented.

How often should you replace spark plugs? Never if a car is properly designed. Yes, the automaker may recommend spark plug changes every 50,000 or 100,000 miles. But then superior manufacturers want no cars to every fail. GM once provided numbers base upon when 50% or 90% of their products failed. Believe me. I learned by doing - and then asking embarrassing questions. I left a lot of blood inside automobiles - and learned why.

Is that enough ways to discover what is "properly designed"?

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... my temporomechanic says the Horologizing camber guides need aligning ... is he trying to con me? And I think the flux capacitor is on the blink, it makes a funny noise when I go around centuries...

You don't have a problem until it materializes you inside the earth or somewhere in deep space. The earth will only be there at the right time which is why a flux capacitor always has the right space.

[Cloud]

I agree, TW, I would never, ever buy a car without it being recommended by Consumer Reports.

Hence, my 2001 Honda Civic.



I very much appreciate all who have taken the time to respond here, even with the contentiousness. (Hey, it's the Cellar, what do we expect?)

Accidents must diminish the longevity of a vehicle, though, no? Mine had an accident several years back, and was fixed. Fixed well, but I keep thinking there must be some lingering weakness in the frame after that.

I've been thinking about the longevity issue, too. So, are people saying that all of a sudden, cars' reliability and longevity are vastly increased? After what year?

I wonder if the car-buying public has really twigged to this, or cares. That would give most people time enough to pay off their car, and save cash for the next one. I'm sure the car-finance people are not bruting this about.

Of course, most people are too caught up in "look at my shiny new car" syndrome to pay attention.

[classicman]

Does a 2001 civic have a "frame"? I thought that was a unibody design, but I'm too lazy to check.


Edit:
Curiousity got to me - yeah it has a frame.

[Cloud]

beats the hell out of me. All I know is that the rear left was damaged, and the underbody or axle or something was damaged.

Yeah, I know, I'm dumb about cars. Said so, didn't I?

[Cloud]

hey, I see the Car Talk guys have local mechanics' reviews on their site. Cool!

http://www.cartalk.com/menus/info.html