From: C. E. White on

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:48:16 GMT, "Whitelightning"
> <white.lightning2(a)> wrote:
>>> I've talked to dealers service people and they tell me they have never
>>> fixed a sludged engine that has had the oil changed at the correct
>>> interval.
>>Do yoiu really think they would tell you otherwise?
> Absolutely!
> Service people are not like service writers.

How would they know if the oil was changed regularly? Oh wait, I know - if
the engine has sludge, the oil was not changed regularly...


From: Mike Marlow on

"SnoMan" <admin(a)> wrote in message

> That Jeep is nor longer a Jeep as they are made today because the 4.0
> was AMC engine and well designed and sturdy not like the import
> engines they are using in some newer Jeep models today. I buy quality
> not nationality and Toyota did not get to were they are today by
> building junk nor did Detriot loose so much market share for a good
> reason, lower quality and value. Detriot banked on the "buy americain"
> for years to save their cookies and they still have not learned that
> if you make a good product is sells itself without 5000 or 10000
> dollar clearance rebates.

I'm happy you like your new Toyota. Really. That's as it should be.
And... I agree that Detroit caused the mess they're in today, by themselves.
All of that said, I wouldn't lump the trucks in that same barrel. Detroit
has built great trucks for decades. Yeah - there have been problems and
there were things they should have been flogged for in some of their truck
designs, but Detroit does build good trucks. Those of us who really use
pickups know that we can count on them. Toyota has raised the bar now, but
that's the way things go. It's always a leap frog game, and one vendor sets
the bar every few years that everyone else has to step up to or lose.
There's really nothing new about this. Detroit will indeed step up to
Toyota's bar. This is a game they are very familiar with.

As for the new Toyota... the jury is still out on this truck. It's brand
new. Let's see how well the truck holds up. I'm sure based on Toyota's
performance in the past, that they will do whatever they must to make this
thing a success for them, but I'm equally sure they will have to do exactly



From: C. E. White on

"Jeffrey DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt(a)> wrote in message

> I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning the
> corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go.

Hmm, I though Fords were generally rated as being of higher quality than GM
products (except sometimes Buick and Cadillac).


From: SnoMan on
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:43:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow(a)>

> Detroit does build good trucks. Those of us who really use
>pickups know that we can count on them.

I would not say that as you have little choice in the matter but that
will change soon. I do not call a new chevy truck with a large piece
of chromed plastic in front of each front wheel that give the illusion
of tuffness a good truck. I look for a lot of them to break. Same with
large headlight assembley that is going to cost a fourtune to replace.
I guess i am old fashioned because I believe trucks should be sturdy
and have real metal bumpers and headlight assemblies that are
reasonable to replace if damaged. 99 was the last general production
GM truck that actually had a full front bumber made from steel. With
silverado they reduced the size and thickness of it and with 07 they
removed even more metal. The front bumber on a new chevy truck is a
joke at best. (and a very poor joke too) GM has kinda forgot what a
truck should be and has been too focused on making them more car than
truck. They have been doing this to get around crash. emission and MPG
standards because 8600 GVW and bigger trucks have different emisson
and no MPG standards so they make them more car like to get more to
buy them. In the 70's to 80's it was the van craze and them late 90's
to recently it has been the SUV craze but its days are numbered but GM
has not figured that out yet. They are even converteing the saturn
line from cheap econoboxes to high dollar SUV's as a focus.
From: PerfectReign on
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:52:43 -0400, a rock fell from the sky, hitting Mike
Hunter on the head, and inspiring the following:

(top posting corrected)

> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)> wrote in message
> news:-uWdnVlIP_PCnIzbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d(a)
>> "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)> wrote in message
>> news:Yc6Qh.9819$YJ4.3818(a)newsfe23.lga...
>>> DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft
>>> placement and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and
>>> 4 valve
>> engines
>>> that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I
>>> don't understand, if I were you
>> I wouldn't be pretentious about my understanding if I were you.
>> My mistake came from reading Ford's erroneous web page. It's right
>> there on the 4.6 L 24V V8 for the Mustang GT model. Clearly says
>> OHV.
>> If you want to get on a highhorse about understanding, go make your
>> gripes to those responsible for the error on the web page.
> To address the point, OHV is not the same referance as OHC. One can
> NOT build an OHC engine that does NOT have an OHVs. ALL OHC engines
> regardless of how many cams, by definition have overhead valves. As
> apposed to the old flat head engines that had BOTH the cam and the vales
> in the block. One can however build an OHV engine that does NOT have an
> OHC. The original OHV engines had the cam in the block and used push
> rods to activate the valves via the rocker arms.

For those of us who have no clue about which y'all are arguing...


linux - because life is too short to be wasted using windows