From: Clive on
In message <OtSdnd_Jn7h50BjWnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
charlesgrozny <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> writes
>That's why I've stuck with Toyota since the 70's. Don't have time to put
>the car in the shop all the time. There are many times I have to get up at
>0-dark-hundred and have to know I can walk out to the car and it's going to
>start.
Same reason here, I used to be a shift worker before I retired.
--
Clive

From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:44:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:54:30 -0500, Hachiroku <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> It's nothing like that. Or will you claim that if two people go to dinner
> and one orders clams and the other gets a ham sandwich that if the guy who
> ordered the clams gets sick the guy will the ham sandwich will also have
> to go to the doctor???

There's an interesting publication called the Wall Street Journal. It's
available to you, I'm sure, but at last check it cost $1.50. You'd have to
learn to read better, first. There's a LOT of big words in there.

If you could, you'd find that Diamler's troubles didn't start until into
their affiliation with Chrysler, and that they shed Chrysler just as much
for that reason as they did for losing money.

>
>
> That's why
>>Diamler dumped Chrysler on the market for comparatively pennies. Diamler
>>quality suffered during the partnership.
>>
>>
> Chrysler was abused by MB. If problems developed they were due solely to
> MB own actions.

From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:50:46 +0000, Clive wrote:

> In message <uhi9o51jh1ht26t0qf5htbgg78la21gjap(a)4ax.com>, Ashton Crusher
> <demi(a)moore.net> writes
>>Chrysler was abused by MB. If problems developed they were due solely to
>>MB own actions.
> You've got the gall to criticize Toyota owners, have you ever heard of a
> biblical quotation sat say's "remove the plank from your own eye before
> condemning some with a speck in theirs"?

A closer look into Asshton's head?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB_w1w_si_k

From: charlesgrozny on
Same here.

We have owned 5 GM products, the last of which was a 95. That starts with
Dad's 37 Oldsmobile which he bought in 1947. (Before that no one in the
family had a car.)

We've owned 1 Plymouth and 1 Dodge.

We've owned 12 Toyotas.

We've owned 3 Mazdas. 2 JM's and one Fazda truck.

Charles Grozny


From: Mike Hunter on
Get real! What do you mean old technology? Domestics had four speed
manuals available from their European brands if they wanted to use them but
small American cars had the type of tranny the majority of American
preferred, automatics.

The Japs were the ones using old technology, manual tyranny's. It took
them years to develop a decent automatic and then only after they copied
American automatics.


"charlesgrozny" <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:dZidnQqQhtB6KhjWnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

>
> Again, stuck in old technology. Toyota by that time had both 4 and 5
> speed manuals available, Chevy had only the 4 speed with gear ratios they
> probably hadn't done much with since WW2.
>
> Charles Grozny
>
>
>