What did Toyota know, and when did they know it?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Toyota Recall: Scandal, Media Circus, and Stupid Drivers -Editorial
Next: Where's Scott in Fla ..?
From: Tegger on 23 Feb 2010 14:03 "charlesgrozny" <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> wrote in news:fLudnSNihZ11ghnWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > I think what we have here is the automotive manufacturing equivalent > of Gresham's Law. (Gresham's Law: Bad money drives good money out of > circulation. Proof of which was seen in 1965 when the Mint quit > making silver dimes, quarters and halves and the 1964 and prior coins > disappeared from circulation. nearly overnight.) That only happens when the government gives itself a monopoly over the money. When there is competition, the government has to outlaw the competition to make certain people will use its money and not the competition's. This happened in the US in 1933, in France in 1790-96, and in other places in the world at different times in history. In fact, by about 1794 in France, it was punishable by death to even ASK what money would be used in payment; only the Revolutionary government's Assignat was legal tender. Typically, parties will /accept/ only known-good currency to protect themselves against the known-bad, but will attempt to /give/ any bad stuff they end up with, in the hopes that the recipient will accept it. > > Gresham's Law for Automotive Manufacturers. A good company partnering > with a less-than-good company always drags the good company down. > From what I've seen, historically this is often more true than not, unless the good company is substantially larger than the less-than-good one. -- Tegger
From: charlesgrozny on 23 Feb 2010 15:08 As usual, Mike, ya got it backwards. GM was stuck in the 50's in many ways for over 2 decades. The outside sheet metal got changed and engines got bigger, but a lot of things that were problems in the 50's remained unaddressed in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's. For instance, that bane of bodies, RUST. I had a 95 S-10 that still rusted worse in 4 years than ANY Toyota I've ever owned, even the 15 and 20 year old ones. And I wouldn't talk, Mr F***ed Over Rebuilt Dodge. Ford basically stopped innovating in the 1930's. They've got a long way to go to prove they can meet what Toyota used to be. Ford was the last car to get rid of cable brakes in 1940. Charles Grozny
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 15:45 "charlesgrozny" <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> wrote in message news:q8-dnXdVxM5GqBnWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > As usual, Mike, ya got it backwards. > > GM was stuck in the 50's in many ways for over 2 decades. The > outside sheet metal got changed and engines got bigger, but a lot of > things that were problems in the 50's remained unaddressed in the > 60's, 70's and even the 80's. For instance, that bane of bodies, > RUST. I had a 95 S-10 that still rusted worse in 4 years than ANY > Toyota I've ever owned, even the 15 and 20 year old ones. While you mat not have had problems with Toyota rusting, I certainly did. Mid 80's Cressida started rusting in less than 3 years in NC (not a high salt state). You don't think Toyota was stuck in the 50's for many years? > And I wouldn't talk, Mr F***ed Over Rebuilt Dodge. Ford basically > stopped innovating in the 1930's. They've got a long way to go to > prove they can meet what Toyota used to be. Ford was the last car > to get rid of cable brakes in 1940. Ford didn't use cable to operate the brakes. They used rods and bellcranks. Henry Ford didn't trust hydraulic brakes. It certainly didn't save money. I actually sort of understand old Henry's problem with hydrualic brakes. On my farm we have tractors with both hydraulic and mechanical brakes. Tractors tend to sit a lot (like from October to March) and the d&*@n hydraulic brakes often fail to work. I've never had the mechanical brakes fail. Ed
From: Hachiroku on 23 Feb 2010 20:48 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:59:15 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote: > Seems you are forgetting it is hard for the NHTSA and the new media to > ignore 34 deaths among Toyota owners in the past year. With how many directly attributable to unintended acceleration? Not *ALLEGED* unintentional acceleration? Any answer but "I don't know" is total BS.
From: Hachiroku on 23 Feb 2010 20:54
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:19:11 -0500, C. E. White wrote: >> Just what happened to Daimler and Chrysler, Daimler thought they >> could boot-strap Chrysler into a maker of reliable cars for the >> American market, instead Chrysler pulled Daimler down to it's level, >> now after a messy divorce, Daimler's reliability is seriously in >> question and they're having to through a lot of money at building >> reliability and prestige again. > > Youa re going to have to explain to me how Chrysler pulled Daimler > down to it's level. Um, that's pretty much what happened. I don't know how. It was something like a very good swimmer going out to rescue someone who was drowning, and the drowner pulls the good swimmer under. That's why Diamler dumped Chrysler on the market for comparatively pennies. Diamler quality suffered during the partnership. |