Ode to the full service gas station

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

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?

Reliability improvement has been constant since after the 1970s. In the 1970s, bean counters (business school graduates) got jobs by reduced American reliability - cost controls - the solution to massive and wasteful spending in Nam.

For example, my every 1970 vintage cars needed fenders removed within the first two years to remove rust. Inside of fenders required paint. Less paint = cost controls. One Ford - all vehicles of that model then - required a complete valve job ($thousands) to install parts intentionally 'forgotten' on Henry Ford's orders. Parts found in the 1960s version somehow got forgotten in the 1970s? Another model required a new cam shaft every 20,000 miles because of things intentionally 'forgotten' in the name of cost controls. During this same time, the world continued doing what any American patriot would do - innovated - increased reliability. But then others did not have a lying president and were not wasting precious treasures on a war that could never be won.

It was routine to start having failures after 10,000 miles. Today, same occurs after 100,000 miles.

Reliability charts from Consumer Reports demonstrate how the world routinely improved reliability. Reliability is directly traceable to management concepts mostly from or attributed to William Edwards Deming. Toyotas 1964 legendary quality is directly traceable to what he (and others like him) taught. Increased quality even means no quality control inspectors - zero. Those lessons remained ignored in 1970s America until, for example, Ford Motor hung a banner that read "Quality is Job #1". IOW Ford brought Deming back from Japan.

Reviewing the charts (eyes should get bigger when numbers appear) GM products averaged 110 problems per 100 new cars in 1980. In 1985, GM bragged about reducing those problems by one half - 60 problems per 100 new cars. What GM forgot to mention (classic of bean counter propaganda) is that Honda and Toyota were doing about 30 problems per 100 new cars back in 1980. GM still was not doing what the world was doing five years earlier. GM did not obtain Honda and Toyota reliability until 1995 - fifteen years later - because bean counters rather than car guys design GM products. And then management blamed everyone else - the unions, government, tax laws, schools ... - everyone except GM management.

Even GM products got more reliable. But those products were still so bad as to not be exportable - more American jobs lost. Jobs lost because so many Americans kept buying those crappy GM products.

GM hypes propaganda - using the same principles that George Jr used to claim Saddam had WMDs. GM bragged about closing the gap on foreign competition. They do that every 5 or 6 years so that anti-Americans will buy their products. Promote myths that forget GM was comparing their products to competition products of 15 years ago.

In playing number games, GM bragged that their products had only 15more problems than Honda and Toyota. But GM also forgot to mention that meant twice as many failures per new vehicle. Did you go after the numbers like a patriot? Or did you believe GM spin like one who listens to Rush Limbaugh?

Reliability is constantly improving if bankruptcy threatens to remove the reasons for 'no improvement': top management. Unfortunately, some consumers are so anti-American as to say "Buy American". That means American products can remain inferior, costs can be higher, and the enemies of America (bad corporate management) will then buy politicians to obtain corporate welfare. Free markets work best when the consumer is informed. The informed consumer knows quality from five years ago is high failure today - everywhere.

The Mercedes Benz, selling elsewhere at Buick prices, can sell in North America at luxury car priced because GM products are that poor. GM North American products are so inferior as to not be exportable. American jobs lost.

Reliability increases because of something called innovation. Worst manufacturers will play propaganda games with facts. It works because some consumers refuse to pay attention or learn of those numbers. Do you automatically believe what 'they' say? The benchmark. Did you believe Saddam must have WMDs? Or were you jumping off that cliff like lemming from an Apple Super Bowl commercial?

Why do some still believe all that maintenance is required? Because the consumer can be blamed for failures actually directly traceable to top corporate management who stifled increased reliability. Get fools to blame failure on poor maintenance so that profits can be protected. Hype bigger warranties where failures are highest.

What was causing all those tire failures on Ford Explorers - killing people? Suddenly tires were not being properly inflated? They also tried to blame tire inflation for a 60% premature tire failure of 1975 Firestone 500s. Bull promoted because a defective ATX tire design, first identified by Ford Motor in Venezuela years earlier, was not corrected. So we blame the consumer. Firestone (Bridgestone) even changed the tire's label to claim that fifth ply was installed. Then when tires continued to fail, Firestone (Bridgestone) blamed deaths and roll overs on owner maintenance, bad drivers, ... Total lies. How many still did not know Firestone (Bridgestone) was lying? How many still believed Firestone's 1990s (and 1970s) propaganda?

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Unnecessary constant checking is hyped to and then by the naive who never bothered to learn facts. Some proclaim knowledge only because 'thousands of web sites' said so. It was the perfect example of one deceived by the propaganda. Spend $100 every three months on a wheel alignment only because his citation says so? Bull.

Reality - no engineered car since about 1980 needs wheel alignment. Innovation. No cars since 1975 need tune ups. Problem eliminated by EPA regulations. Everything must constantly get better. If it does not, then even government regulation may be necessary. See the story created by Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed". It was not only about the Chevy Corvair. So why did it take government to mandate electronic ignitions - eliminate tune ups? Many Americans will still pay for a tune up only because they read propaganda somewhere. Same logic also proved Saddam had WMDs.

Reliability must increase constantly as Deming was teaching Japan in the 1950s - as Frederick Winslow Taylor was pioneering the 1920s. Costs must decrease constantly. Innovation must be ongoing. Only then are profits justified.

Demonstrated is why some would not know increased reliability must always exist. Demonstrated is why others believe cars require so much maintenance. Most probably never even heard of Deming or Taylor. Most probably believed lies about Explorer tire failure due to low tire pressure. One even posted myths of a $100 wheel alignment every 7,500 miles. No wonder GM is not corrected by something called bankruptcy. No wonder Firestone (Bridgestone) again got away with killing people. Some are just willing to accept failures and lies. It explains why George Jr could lie about Saddam's WMDs and continue lying today (ie the Annapolis talks). In an American patriotic economy, reliability is constantly increasing, costs are constantly decreasing, the workers are constantly seeing higher incomes, standards of living and incomes are constantly increasing - all because management encourages - does not stifle - innovation.

If reliability is not constantly increasing, then Americans are expected to bankrupt that company. We did just that to save both Ford and Chrysler in 1981 and 1979. We vote for who runs our nation by what we purchase. The worst Americans subvert this free market attack on bad management using "Buy American" myths. Everything must continue to be more reliable and cost less. Innovation is the reason why. The greatest enemies of innovation are business school executives - people who don't even know how the work gets done.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Does a 2001 civic have a "frame"?

Any car constructed on a frame is at least 20 years obsolete. Building a car on a frame means costs are significantly too high. Many reasons why unibody replaced frames long ago should be common knowledge to the 1% who know cars.

[busterb]

I should have know that, but I don't have a MBA!!!

[classicman]

I'm certainly in the 99% that don't.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Unibody is the cheaper way to go. Just hope it doesn't rust through and break in half. I had a 4 door that the right rear door wouldn't open because rust in that corner had weakened the structural integrity.

Oh, and don't tow anything big, or take it off road. Stick to the mall parking lot.

[BrianR]

Cloud, I will be home by Sunday. If you want, I'll give your car a physical, free!

I check a big rig daily (okay, my checks seem to take a LOT less time in the rain) and can hit all the important points in less than 30 minutes.

PM me if you want me to pop over.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Unibody is the cheaper way to go. Just hope it doesn't rust through and break in half. I had a 4 door that the right rear door wouldn't open because rust in that corner had weakened the structural integrity.

Oh, and don't tow anything big, or take it off road. Stick to the mall parking lot.

What???

[Cloud]

Thank you, Brian. That's a very generous offer, and I may take you up on that in the future; for now, I did manage to find someone to do some routine servicing on my car.

[fargon]

To get back on topic. I always enjoied Working full service, pumping eythl washing windows and all the rest, I really miss doing it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll bet you miss pumping Ethel, the most.

[classicman]

lol @ Bruce -

So, Fargon, Have you heard from Ethel recently? How is she?

sorry, couldn't resist.