"TenPercent" <tenpercent (AT) not-real-address (DOT) com> wrote

When the NUMMI plant first opened in Fremont, CA, it was a joint venture
between GM and Toyota. Prior to that, GM assembled pickups there. One of
the things that amazed me is that only about half of the vehicles in the
employee parking lot were GM, with the majority of the remaining half
imports of various brands. I do not know if that is the case at other GM
plants today.

Although manufacturers do not publish quality data for individual assembly
plants, you can rest assured that they monitor quality at each plant very
closely. So much attention was paid to the quality of the FX's and Novas
that were the first vehicles to come out of the NUMMI plant that after 1
year, the quality was actually better than some Japanese assembly plants.
Of course, that was over 20 years ago, and I do not have any information as
to whether this is still true or not.

BTW, I've been to 4 plants that assemble Toyotas, and 99% to 100% of the
vehicles are Toyotas. When I visited the Subaru-Isuzu plant in Indiana, all
except 1 or 2 vehicles were Subarus, Isuzus, or the Honda-badged SUVs that
were assembled there. I drive by Daimler-Chrysler's plant in Belevedere,
IL, and 90% of the vehicles in the employee lot are Chryslers.

Anyone who has passed a 5th grade science class could figure out a way to
bypass a seatbelt interlock. Many states have mandatory seatbelt laws,
which gives government a chance to make money off of stupid people.

I think that insurance companies should not have to cover accident victims
who were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident, with ejection
from a vehicle without the seatbelt anchors failing being de facto proof of
the lack of seatbelt use. The people who wear seatbelts would not have to
fund those who do not wear them.

Operating a 3 thousand pound vehicle is not necessarily dangerous in and of
itself. Millions of vehicles travel at highway speeds every day without
accidents. It's just that when an accident happens at those speeds, the
consequences are severe.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

In article <gralin2ajg42$.dlg (AT) hightech (DOT) misfit>, High Tech Misfit wrote:
Just a clarification: I was talking about the 2006 Accent (or 2006 Kia Rio),
not the predecessor. The previous generation was too small to be a direct
competitor. But the new generation is comparable in interior space, and
still cheap. There's no question that the Corolla is more fuel efficient,
but is it significant now that the gap has closed?

Let me put it this way: a 2006 Accent's MSRP starts at $11,455. It's rated
at 28/36 (auto) or 32/35 (manual). Its Rio twin is rated at 29/38 (a) or
32/35 (m).

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...90482&DARTmail

The Corolla CE's MSRP starts at $14,545, and that doesn't include the side
air bags. The EPA guide at www.fueleconomy.gov estimates the Accent's annual
fuel cost to be $1030, the Corolla's to be $1000. So cost-wise, with a
Corolla you start off with a $2000+ deficit and you save $30/year. Throw in
the time value of money in the equation, and you will NEVER catch up.

I'm sure the Corolla is a superior car in other ways, but the cost argument
based on MPG does not work. The same goes for the new Civic, which is both
more fuel efficient and pricier. Toyota and Honda make good compact
cars, but I don't think that old phrase "economy cars" applies anymore.

Chris

In article <5609a$43644653$180fead6$28844 (AT) msgid (DOT) meganewsservers.com>,
Ray O <rokigawa (AT) tristarassociatesDOT (DOT) com> wrote:

I worked for GM in western NY state in the late 50's. I drove a Volvo.
I got a lot of "official" comments (no serious presssure, though)

Often the car had someone examining it in the parking lot. Many of the
lookenspeepers remarked about the excellent finish and precision with
which the body panels fit. This was the era in which American car
manufacturers were using rubber hammers to achieve closability after
hanging a door.

Brent

In article <pan.2005.10.30.04.07.26.80542 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts>, Hachiroku
<Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote:

Hey, thsnk you for that date. I'd forgotten it.

When I was a boy my father brought home for me a toy xylophone. It was
Made In Occupied Japan and said so on its label. It was a good piece of
work. Its body was made of painted tinplate. One day I peered inside
and saw the litho'ed label of a can of plums. :-)

On my Made In Japan -- and so far flawless --- Prius I find no plum
labels. :-)

What I do find is good ideas skillfully implemented.

Brent

Christopher Wong wrote:

You do make a good point, but take these scenarios into consideration:

1. One commutes a long distance to go to work everyday.
2. The car is to be kept for a long time, e.g. more than 5 years.
3. Gas prices again reach Hurricane Katrina aftermath levels.

A combination of one or more of these factors increases the likelihood of
the fuel costs more than offsetting the extra cost of buying a Corolla or a
Civic.

Alternatively, you could wait a while to get a Toyota Yaris (Echo
replacement) which, according to Toyota USA's website, will be available in
the U.S. next spring as a 2007 model (it just went on sale here in Canada).
The Yaris should cost less than the Corolla and about the same as the Echo.
Its gas mileage is similar to that of the Echo, which means it is even
better than all of the previously mentioned cars.

"TenPercent" <tenpercent (AT) not-real-address (DOT) com> wrote:
snip
You people ARE kidding AREN'T you!... unconstitutional? surely
you're kidding!...please say you are...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Ray O" <rokigawa (AT) tristarassociatesDOT (DOT) com> wrote:
snip
I agree with this...seat belt laws protect only the people in the
car involved...whether they're worn or not makes NO DIFFERENCE to
anyone in other cars at all...unlike the lack of DRL's which can
have a profound effect on OTHER drivers and cars, and should
therefore, be enforced by law "IMO".

IOW, *I* should be restricted BY LAW from doing ANYTHING which
presents a danger to YOU. (and vice versa of course)

So the law should NOT be involved in seatbelt legislation... and
SHOULD be involved in DRL legislation (again IMO)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:


Hilarious! I found the comments made by the Corolla service
technician in 1974 funny too. Surely requiring the use of
seat belt interlocks cannot be something that is UnConstitutional.

Similarly, it CAN'T be a constitutional right to drive a car,
because if driving were an innate, constitutional right,
you couldn't be forced to get car insurance before exercising
that right.

Paying car insurance, in that case, would be considered as
unconstitutional as having to pay "poll taxes" to vote or take
a reading test to vote, which used to be the case for
African-Americans living in the South a half-century ago.

Imagine a teen at the DMV saying, "I ain't gotta take no
stinkin' Driving Test!! It's my god-damn Constitutional Right
to drive! :-)

Gord Beaman, 10/30/2005,7:59:49 PM, wrote:

DRLs are a waste of circuitry and cost. My evidence to that is
manufacturers don't even install them anymore.

I think you should live in a cocoon and never be exposed to any danger
ever again in your lifetime.

Maybe the law should be involved in enforcing laws they already have on
the books. If you want more laws I suggest the use of cell phones be
eliminated from moving vehicles. I'm willing to bet THAT would prevent
more accidents than vehicles equipped with DRLs.

One thing about the 1995 model year Tercel I bought in
1995: I bought it used with 18,000 miles on it. In 10 years
I added another 15,000 miles.

The car always worked well. However, I noticed that first summer
I had it, on extremely hot days while climbing up medium-grade
hills, the car would have trouble shifting into either 3rd or
4th gear (automatic transmission) if pushing it too hard with the
accelerator. If accelerating at an easier pace, the shift would
happen without a problem.

Anyhow, would that kind of thing suggest problems with the tranny
later in the future, say at the 100 K or 150 K mile mark?

Anyways, that's one reason I'm now buying a brand new Corolla
instead of an 8-month old slightly used Corolla with 18,000 miles
on it. I guess I could save 12 or 20 percent buying slightly
used, but....

Thanks for any insights.