Jeremy Clarkson does it again!!!

[southernfriedcj]

This 2011 F-450 King Ranch I just sold has more plastic in the interior than the law should allow...especially for $67K!

It's a truck for christsakes, not a 120k touring car. I have owned 10 Superduty Fords since 1997 and I think the interiors are great for a truck.
I also thinks anybody who pays a premium for a "King Ranch" package is a dolt, unless they happen to own the King Ranch.

[Damn True]

The big 3 weren't hammered in the 70s. They suddenly gained foreign competition but they were hardly hammered.

Can you share the market share analysis that you are basing this assertion on?

1970-2000 I think would give the most accurate picture.

[79PonchoUK]

Can you share the market share analysis that you are basing this assertion on?

1970-2000 I think would give the most accurate picture.

I've not looked at it much at all TBH. Maybe not enough to argue with, but lets see.

I know that in 1991, the japanese brands cornered a third of the US auto market. I also know that until recently they had seen year on year increases in sales in the US.

Now, even in 1991, a third of the market share for all japanese brands isn't HAMMERING the big three.



If I was in a market that had 7 main players and two of those players took 33% of the market, I'd not feel like they were 'hammering' the rest of us. Proving successful, certainly, but they were being hammered no less than the german imports....and besides, did that make the german imports bad cars? Because they didn't sell as well?

Of course not. That's just crazy. The late 70s/early 80s will have been a shock to the big 3, considering the growth in sales of japanese cars....but that in no way means the japanese manufacturers 'hammered' them.





Basing the quality of a car on its ability to compete in a market is rediculous...people here are getting to grips with that idea with certain cars. The most popular cars are french. Everyone knows they're generally relatively ****...it's a proven concensus, but people buy them because of the deals. Japanese manufacturers build dependable cars, generally, but what sold them is marketing. They had a nice jump in the 80s because they were something new. Different ideas, not necessarily better, but people like new and they like different....particularly if it doesn't look like it costs them any trouble.

Whether that marketing be technical buzz words, working on the fuel crisis, working from reliability statistics (remember my corsa example) or just managing better PR. Nobody here thinks french cars are the reliable, well built option...so why don't more people buy japanese?

Simple, marketing.

It's weird, just lately you can see a notable shift of favour away from japanese cars in enthusiast circles. Not just the circles I'm in, but on talking with people in the industry. It may be that one day, fashion, market trends and marketing prowess shift in favour of US manufacturers again. It won't be the products that determine it, that's for sure. I've spent too long marketing good and bad products for other people to believe it.

I've said all I can say on the issue. People will be asleep now. Sorry, wake up, it's over.

[79-TA]

American cars do currently suffer from the "perception gap." Consumer opinion lags at least 5 years behind what is actually currently offered. Since GM and Ford have been putting out pretty good product since '04 the perception of American cars is finally on the rise again.

Much of what helped the popularity of foreign cars is that people began moving to them once cars in general became less terrible. Imagine going from a "midsized" '70's GM dinosaur to the subsequent generation of '80's fuel injected imports. Fair comparison? Not really, but transitions like that made a huge impact on people.

It's not as simple as foreign makers just coming in and giving detroit a wake up call. Detroit was competitive in the 80's and 90's. The early 00's can be thought of as a lapse, but the competition wasn't exactly solid either.

[wmhjr]

American engineering is everything German engineering is. Even if it is down to differing 'levels' of engineering.....the germans will trump the americans on the surface - the parts you have to touch, but the american engineering uses better fundamentals, whether we're talking electronics, engine/gearbox configuration or even materials.

And you're right - it's not as simple as a tap test.....to which you still haven't fathomed (despite me spelling it out) was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

With comments like the above, it's clear that you're in denial and I give up with you. Do you work for one of the Big 3 by any chance? Just curious. Buy what you want, say what you want. But you're on another planet. If you're going to bash Clarkson you should know that I'd put you on the other extreme. It's very difficult to determine where you're joking or being sarcastic because so many of your comments are out in left field with a catchers mitt.

The Big 3 was not "hammered"? Really? Just marketing? So having an import being the longest running market leader in the US is not getting hammered? Really? Just marketing? The Camry having the very highest sales figures in the country just a myth?

And let's be accurate, shall we? I didn't say I'd find 10 faults in a camaro for every one you find in a "german car". I said I'd find 10 in every one you find in an "AMG". That's my claim, and I'd conservatively stick with it. Please don't lower yourself to changing what people here say.

The point is that I'd EXPECT that to be the case. The AMG is a completely different beast. I said before it was an unfair comparison - that's not good enough for you. You seem to be prey to some sort of condition that makes one believe a 30K car (no, not $22K) should BE the equal of a $100K+ car. I don't expect that. Doesn't mean the AMG is crap. Or that the Camaro is crap. Bad comparison. My question - as before - was what WOULD be a good comparison. Perhaps it's just that Pony cars don't exist in those markets, maybe? I'd be frankly real happy if the $30k car could best its domestic rivals, like the Mustang. To date, it can't. Or maybe if it didn't have a dash that looked like it came out of a Nintendo game. Or windows that you need a periscope to get decent visibility out of. Or wheel wells that didn't require you to run poorly performing 20" wheels in order for it not to look like a 4x4.

But that's just me.

But here's another idea. Perhaps you'd be more aware of what happened between the Big 3 and the imports in the 70s-90s if maybe you lived here, in an autoworkers family that actually BUILT the friggin cars. Just an idea.

[wmhjr]

American cars do currently suffer from the "perception gap." Consumer opinion lags at least 5 years behind what is actually currently offered. Since GM and Ford have been putting out pretty good product since '04 the perception of American cars is finally on the rise again.

Much of what helped the popularity of foreign cars is that people began moving to them once cars in general became less terrible. Imagine going from a "midsized" '70's GM dinosaur to the subsequent generation of '80's fuel injected imports. Fair comparison? Not really, but transitions like that made a huge impact on people.

It's not as simple as foreign makers just coming in and giving detroit a wake up call. Detroit was competitive in the 80's and 90's. The early 00's can be thought of as a lapse, but the competition wasn't exactly solid either.

I think you've got some good points here. However, I'd also say the 80s were the latter part of the detroit dark ages, and they didn't really compete. Think about the crappy throttle body injection, the Caddy 4-6-8 crap motors, the VERY poor fit and finish. There is little doubt that into the 90s, Honda and Toyota cleaned the clocks of the Big 3 in terms of REAL reliability (not some paid off JD Powers crap)

I also agree that Detroit is building far better stuff today. Way better, in fact. I have a good deal of what you may call "inside information" having lived through the GM fiascos. Very close family members involved with both UAW and corporate GM activities, and since this was where our food was effectively coming from, we paid attention. GM for example dropped the ball big time. They were arrogant. I know for a fact that very senior GM execs actually stated that "We're GM. It doesn't matter what we build, people will buy it". And that Fisher Body got so big for its collective britches that GM finally had to break it up. Anybody wonder why the Fisher Body HQ building in Detroit was bigger than their "owner" GM corporate HQ across the street? How's that working out now?

In the 80s the only thing that kept the big 3 in relative control was marketing. A massive blitz to "buy American" (at any cost). What did it deliver? Massively overly bloated and liability ridden dinosaurs that had so much long term debt that by the time the roosters came home to roost they no longer had the means to easily retool and finance getting back in the drivers seat. All while the competition was relentlessly focusing on what consumers actually WANTED.

The problem now is of the Big 3, you have Government Motors, Chrysler who nobody knows if they'll survive another 2 years, and Ford who mortgaged themselves at just the right time and is now doing OK. Quality is better at Ford and GM. Not at Chrysler. How many people are aware of the warranty claims for convertible tops being denied by Chrysler now? There's lots more. It could have been avoided by plain speaking and honesty, forcing capitalistic corporations that WERE private (as opposed to taxpayer) owned to focus. Now it's gonna be tough and we're all paying for it. So long as some people still have their heads in the sand it's going to continue.

[79PonchoUK]

With comments like the above, it's clear that you're in denial and I give up with you. Do you work for one of the Big 3 by any chance? Just curious. Buy what you want, say what you want. But you're on another planet. If you're going to bash Clarkson you should know that I'd put you on the other extreme. It's very difficult to determine where you're joking or being sarcastic because so many of your comments are out in left field with a catchers mitt.

The Big 3 was not "hammered"? Really? Just marketing? So having an import being the longest running market leader in the US is not getting hammered? Really? Just marketing? The Camry having the very highest sales figures in the country just a myth?

And let's be accurate, shall we? I didn't say I'd find 10 faults in a camaro for every one you find in a "german car". I said I'd find 10 in every one you find in an "AMG". That's my claim, and I'd conservatively stick with it. Please don't lower yourself to changing what people here say.

The point is that I'd EXPECT that to be the case. The AMG is a completely different beast. I said before it was an unfair comparison - that's not good enough for you. You seem to be prey to some sort of condition that makes one believe a 30K car (no, not $22K) should BE the equal of a $100K+ car. I don't expect that. Doesn't mean the AMG is crap. Or that the Camaro is crap. Bad comparison. My question - as before - was what WOULD be a good comparison. Perhaps it's just that Pony cars don't exist in those markets, maybe? I'd be frankly real happy if the $30k car could best its domestic rivals, like the Mustang. To date, it can't. Or maybe if it didn't have a dash that looked like it came out of a Nintendo game. Or windows that you need a periscope to get decent visibility out of. Or wheel wells that didn't require you to run poorly performing 20" wheels in order for it not to look like a 4x4.

But that's just me.

But here's another idea. Perhaps you'd be more aware of what happened between the Big 3 and the imports in the 70s-90s if maybe you lived here, in an autoworkers family that actually BUILT the friggin cars. Just an idea.

I wrote out a post explaining why I'm experienced enough in these cars for my point to be valid, but it asked me to log in again and I lost the lot.

Suffice to say, The number of german and american cars in the UK give me a good idea of what either are like. I've worked on most cars from either side of the pond and tested many in ways you probably haven't. My opinions have basis even if they're shared with a minority....and I'm bored of you trying to discredit me rather than my points.

We'll save these people any more eye-rolling and bash heads in another topic, another time.

[79PonchoUK]

I'll add, I never liked most chrysler products. Excluding the Cherokee maybe.
For me, GM have always averaged as the best of the big 3. Particularly in the past 15 years. I simply don't get the quality concerns of cars like the 4th gen F-bodies etc. There was nothing wrong with the interior whatsoever, the mechanicals were durable (except optispark lol). It compared with anything you could buy of a similar price, and compared well.


And if you're mentioning the Caddy 4-6-8 crap motors, throttle body injection etc. I'll mention BMWs Vanos, the BMW nikosil liners etc. With innovations comes risk, sometimes it backfires. The caddy engine was a truly innovative idea that they got wrong. They didn't do that on the 'if we build it, people will buy it' philosophy. If they were running that ideal then they wouldn't have bothered trying that technology out. The idea is now in use, 20 years later, albeit with different methods.

Look at the histories of the companies...for the past 40 years they've tried every different type of car they could, every technology - HARDLY an example of companies in complacency.
If they ran by the ideal that 'if we build it, they'll buy it' then they wouldn't have tried anything new. Ever. Unless we actually speak to the top brass of the decades in question, we can just as easily write those quotes off as hearsay.

Damn, I said I'd stopped the argument. sorry. lol

[Damn True]

I've not looked at it much at all TBH. Maybe not enough to argue with, but lets see.

I know that in 1991, the japanese brands cornered a third of the US auto market. I also know that until recently they had seen year on year increases in sales in the US.

Now, even in 1991, a third of the market share for all japanese brands isn't HAMMERING the big three.



If I was in a market that had 7 main players and two of those players took 33% of the market, I'd not feel like they were 'hammering' the rest of us. Proving successful, certainly, but they were being hammered no less than the german imports....and besides, did that make the german imports bad cars? Because they didn't sell as well?

Of course not. That's just crazy. The late 70s/early 80s will have been a shock to the big 3, considering the growth in sales of japanese cars....but that in no way means the japanese manufacturers 'hammered' them.

i' set aside the fact that your assertions are based on assumptions and conjecture and not any empirical data. You are wrong on your perception of what losing a significant chunk of market share can do to a company. Losing 1/3 of market share can and often does completely tank companies.

"Hammered" is a pretty apt description. The fact that they've survived this long is testament in part, to the management that we all enjoy deriding from time to time, but it also says something about the import of those companies in that the .gov and banking industries have taken it upon themselves to prop the companies up more times than is easily justifiable.

[sik68]

Losing market share is also an inevitable effect of globalization. The proper response is to minimize share loss, and gain share in other markets.

[wmhjr]

And if you're mentioning the Caddy 4-6-8 crap motors, throttle body injection etc. I'll mention BMWs Vanos, the BMW nikosil liners etc.

I'll stop too after this one. Comparing the Caddy 4-6-8 to VANOS shows your massively different perspective. VANOS and VANOS 2 are IMHO huge successes. I've owned a number of them, though that makes no difference. The differences between VANOS and the Caddy system are night and day. VANOS works. VANOS boosts torque and overall power. It's a leading technology that was effectively implemented. Nikosil liners were frankly used by many manufacturers on ALL continents.

Bad, bad attempt at a comparison. Matter of fact, I think you just made my point. Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm simply pointing out that I don't trust your obvious bias, and that you're making statements as to the "why" things happened in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s HERE in terms of the Big 3 manufacturing when you clearly are without any experience in those areas. Sure, you may have driven some of the product. While we can agree that the quality of 2 of the Big 3 has increased sharply, some of your claims go well beyond the ludicrous (such as stating that US Domestic material quality is superior for example that MB or BMW.

I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express

[79PonchoUK]

I'll stop too after this one. Comparing the Caddy 4-6-8 to VANOS shows your massively different perspective. VANOS and VANOS 2 are IMHO huge successes. I've owned a number of them, though that makes no difference. The differences between VANOS and the Caddy system are night and day. VANOS works. VANOS boosts torque and overall power. It's a leading technology that was effectively implemented. Nikosil liners were frankly used by many manufacturers on ALL continents.

Bad, bad attempt at a comparison. Matter of fact, I think you just made my point. Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm simply pointing out that I don't trust your obvious bias, and that you're making statements as to the "why" things happened in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s HERE in terms of the Big 3 manufacturing when you clearly are without any experience in those areas. Sure, you may have driven some of the product. While we can agree that the quality of 2 of the Big 3 has increased sharply, some of your claims go well beyond the ludicrous (such as stating that US Domestic material quality is superior for example that MB or BMW.

I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express

I'm sorry, I wanted to stop, but I can't let that lie.....you're showing what you say I'm showing. It's not night and day, they're fundamentally very similar problems indeed.

VANOS was a huge PITA for BMW. Much of it was well swept under the rug but the problems with that system have cost them a lot of money and certainly didn't make it an easy system to make 'huge' success of, you can see that by the number of times it was dropped from the specsheet. If you can find a single VANOS bmw over 10 years old that hasn't had, or shows signs of a VANOS fault, I'll fly to the US and hand you a cheque for $10. It was there to make the engine more economical for it's size - like the caddy 4-6-8, which like the VANOS worked fine when in tip-top condition, but inevitably ended up with problems which, like the vanos, led to running problems (or in the VANOS case, nasty rattles too).

How is it not comparable? Because there was 10 years between the two efforts?

I'll admit, the nikasil liner is partly down to us having **** fuel....it's no excuse though. There were a few engines using nikasil lining at that time and it was BMW/JAG engines that showed the huge number of failures. On top of that, BMW released an engine with nikasil liners even after they had been made aware of the problems with exisiting engines....

....of course, with BMW, such a thing was honest and a mistake. How could they have known, it wasn't their fault.
With GM it's 'they sold it because they didn't care'.

Please.

If anything, you are making my point.

Re: Your comment about my thoughts ont he materials....
The materials you touch on a BMW are often very good. Some other materials aren't as nice as those you'll find on a GM product though. Strip down a modern BMW engine, get underneath a modern BMW and tell me the fixings are made using better materials. Do it, then come back to me. Tell me how most of the rubber products on any Volkswagen or Audi over 5 years old don't need replacing.

Maybe we're both equally as crazy and blind to reality....but maybe you do subscribe to the 'tap test'




PS, I drive a £22,000 BMW everyday that has an interior that makes a Mustang feel like a Bentley inside. It's cheap, it's plastic, it's rattly and the car itself has about 5 EXTREMELY common, costly faults, one of which is certainly dangerous. You'll ignore that though, no doubt. It somehow doesn't count because it's BMW.

[79PonchoUK]

i' set aside the fact that your assertions are based on assumptions and conjecture and not any empirical data. You are wrong on your perception of what losing a significant chunk of market share can do to a company. Losing 1/3 of market share can and often does completely tank companies.

"Hammered" is a pretty apt description. The fact that they've survived this long is testament in part, to the management that we all enjoy deriding from time to time, but it also says something about the import of those companies in that the .gov and banking industries have taken it upon themselves to prop the companies up more times than is easily justifiable.

Sorry bud. none of them lost 1/3rd of the market share. The big 3 aren't a single company....they're actually 3 competing companies. lol

[wmhjr]

If you can find a single VANOS bmw over 10 years old that hasn't had, or shows signs of a VANOS fault, I'll fly to the US and hand you a cheque for $10.

And right there is an example of how you let yourself get in trouble.

Buy the plane ticket and let me know when you'll be here. I can give you more examples than you can POSSIBLY shake a stick at. That is perhaps the most unsubstantiated and emotionally based statement I've seen.

I'm waiting for your dates so you can hand me the check. Sorry, but you really screwed the pooch on that one. Tell you what? When you get here I'll let you follow me in your rental car to a handful of examples of 10 yr old BMWs with VANOS that have never, ever, ever, ever had a single fault. As expected, your statement is not based on fact. Yeah, all those S52 and S54 engines were junk. They were EXACTLY like the Caddy 4-6-8. Rigggghhhhhtttttt....... Those M-Coupes that race here with S52 and S54 motors which were last built 10 years ago? Pure junk. Yup. BTW, the "number of times it was dropped from the spec sheet? Are you on crack? Seriously? What mind altering substances are involved here? VANOS has been (and is) a staple of BMW from 1992 to present. We're going on 20 years of VANOD or DOUBLE VANOS. And sorry, it (like so many other things) was really a performance enhancer at heart which waterfalled down. Here's a question - in what car did DOUBLE VANOS first appear? Was it an econobox? Hint. I owned one.

Like I said, make your flight reservations.

[wmhjr]

It's a truck for christsakes, not a 120k touring car. I have owned 10 Superduty Fords since 1997 and I think the interiors are great for a truck.
I also thinks anybody who pays a premium for a "King Ranch" package is a dolt, unless they happen to own the King Ranch.

So you're saying that musclecarjohn is a dolt? Nice. And you're saying that even if Ford offers a premium product and a customer pays that premium, they don't deserve to get what they're paying for? Because you think it's a "truck for christsakes"?

Hmmmm.... Don't get me wrong. I haven't owned a Ford truck in years. The interior of my '04 Dodge is craplastic. I really don't care. I bought it for the Cummins and the 6spd - used. But if it were my daily driver and I bought it new, I'd care.

[Pagani]

Clarkson schould not be taken serious

[Damn True]

Sorry bud. none of them lost 1/3rd of the market share. The big 3 aren't a single company....they're actually 3 competing companies. lol

Seriously?

Do you think I don't know that?

User CP ---> Ignore

I don't suffer fools........period.

You are now completely irrelevant. Run along. The adults are having a discussion....


To continue the discussion.

AMERICAN

GM

Maximum 1960's: 1962 (50.7%)
Minimum 1960's: 1961 (45.7%)

Maximum 1970's: 1976 (46.5%)
Minimum 1970's: 1970 (38.9%)

Maximum 1980's: 1980 (44.2%)
Minimum 1980's: 1989 (34.7%)

Maximum 1990's: 1990 (35.2%)
Minimum 1990's: 1998 (28.7%)

Maximum 2000's: 2002 (28.3%)
Minimum 2000's: 2009 (19.6%)

Ford

Maximum 1960's: 1961 (29.3%)
Minimum 1960's: 1967 (23.9%)

Maximum 1970's: 1970 (28.3%)
Minimum 1970's: 1979 (23.8%)

Maximum 1980's: 1989 (24.5%)
Minimum 1980's: 1981 (19.8%)

Maximum 1990's: 1995 (25.5%)
Minimum 1990's: 1991 (23.2%)

Maximum 2000's: 2000 (22.6%)
Minimum 2000's: 2008 (14.2%)

Chrysler

Maximum 1960's: 1968 (15.2%)
Minimum 1960's: 1962 (9.6%)

Maximum 1970's: 1970 (14.9%)
Minimum 1970's: 1979 (11.1%)

Maximum 1980's: 1988 (14.0%)
Minimum 1980's: 1980 (9.1%)

Maximum 1990's: 1996 (15.9%)
Minimum 1990's: 1991 (12.0%)

Maximum 2000's: 2000 (14.2%)
Minimum 2000's: 2009 (8.8%)

JAPANESE

Toyota

Maximum 1960's: 1969 (1.1%)
Minimum 1960's: 1965 (0.1%)

Maximum 1970's: 1970 (2.0%)
Minimum 1970's: 1979 (4.5%)

Maximum 1980's: 1981 (6.6%)
Minimum 1980's: 1984 (5.7%)

Maximum 1990's: 1998 (8.5%)
Minimum 1990's: 1994 (7.1%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (16.7%)
Minimum 2000's: 2000 (9.1%)

Honda

Maximum 1970's: 1979 (2.5%)
Minimum 1970's: 1970 (0.0%)

Maximum 1980's: 1989 (5.3%)
Minimum 1980's: 1983 (3.3%)

Maximum 1990's: 1991 (6.4%)
Minimum 1990's: 1993 (5.1%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (10.9%)
Minimum 2000's: 2000 (6.5%)

Nissan

Maximum 1960's: 1969 (0.8%)
Minimum 1960's: 1965 (0.2%)

Maximum 1970's: 1979 (4.1%)
Minimum 1970's: 1970 (1.5%)

Maximum 1980's: 1980/1982 (5.5%)
Minimum 1980's: 1988 (4.1%)

Maximum 1990's: 1995 (5.1%)
Minimum 1990's: 1998/1999 (3.9%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (7.3%)
Minimum 2000's: 2001 (4.0%)

Mitsubishi

Maximum 1980's: 1989 (1.0%)
Minimum 1980's: 1982 (0.1%)

Maximum 1990's: 1991 (1.5%)
Minimum 1990's: 1998 (1.2%)

Maximum 2000's: 2002 (2.0%)
Minimum 2000's: 2009 (0.5%)

Subaru

Maximum 1970's: 1979 (0.9%)
Minimum 1970's: 1970 (0.1%)

Maximum 1980's: 1982 (1.4%)
Minimum 1980's: 1989 (0.9%)

Maximum 1990's: 1998 (0.9%)
Minimum 1990's: 1994 (0.7%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (2.0%)
Minimum 2000's: 2000 (1.0%)

KOREAN

Hyundai

Maximum 1980's: 1987 (1.7%)
Minimum 1980's: 1986 (1.0%)

Maximum 1990's: 1990 (1.0%)
Minimum 1990's: 1998 (0.6%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (4.1%)
Minimum 2000's: 2000 (1.4%)

Kia

Maximum 1990's: 1999 (0.8%)
Minimum 1990's: 1994 (0.1%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (2.8%)
Minimum 2000's: 2000 (0.9%)

GERMAN

Volkswagen

Maximum 1960's: 1968 (5.0%)
Minimum 1960's: 1962 (2.7%)

Maximum 1970's: 1970 (5.6%)
Minimum 1970's: 1976 (1.8%)

Maximum 1980's: 1981 (3.1%)
Minimum 1980's: 1989 (1.0%)

Maximum 1990's: 1999 (2.2%)
Minimum 1990's: 1993 (0.4%)

Maximum 2000's: 2009 (2.8%)
Minimum 2000's: 2005 (1.8%)

Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/8087...#ixzz0uDEEeISf

[79PonchoUK]

And right there is an example of how you let yourself get in trouble.

Buy the plane ticket and let me know when you'll be here. I can give you more examples than you can POSSIBLY shake a stick at. That is perhaps the most unsubstantiated and emotionally based statement I've seen.

I'm waiting for your dates so you can hand me the check. Sorry, but you really screwed the pooch on that one. Tell you what? When you get here I'll let you follow me in your rental car to a handful of examples of 10 yr old BMWs with VANOS that have never, ever, ever, ever had a single fault. As expected, your statement is not based on fact. Yeah, all those S52 and S54 engines were junk. They were EXACTLY like the Caddy 4-6-8. Rigggghhhhhtttttt....... Those M-Coupes that race here with S52 and S54 motors which were last built 10 years ago? Pure junk. Yup. BTW, the "number of times it was dropped from the spec sheet? Are you on crack? Seriously? What mind altering substances are involved here? VANOS has been (and is) a staple of BMW from 1992 to present. We're going on 20 years of VANOD or DOUBLE VANOS. And sorry, it (like so many other things) was really a performance enhancer at heart which waterfalled down. Here's a question - in what car did DOUBLE VANOS first appear? Was it an econobox? Hint. I owned one.

Like I said, make your flight reservations.

Are you on crack? You're paranoid as **** about what I say. I didn't say any of the engines were junk, did I? Some BMW engines are outstanding. Now you're lowering yourself to changing what people say. Does that sounds familiar?
I spent half of last week drewling over their legendary straight 6 sat in the back of 3-4 BMW M1s. Awesome.
I happen to love my mates e28 M5. Great car. I'm not a 'fanboy', good stuff deserves merit.



You're right, VANOS is perfect. It never failed. It never had any teething trouble and BMW never had thousands upon thousands of warranty claims over it. If you google VANOS, it doesn't fill the screen with VANOS faults and remedies....it just says how good VANOS really is. There's even a link to a website about how VANOS beat chuck norris. It really was that robust. (NOTE: to avoid litigation, there was in fact no website mentioning chuck norris, I used that for comedic/sensationalist reasons)

Every BMW enthusiast knows early VANOS wasn't reliable. Except you.

...and this needs spelling out for you it seems.....If BMW were looking for a performance increase, they'd just use a bigger engine, cheaper and more reliable with negligable weight gain. No, like most manufacturers they wanted to use a smaller engine to make it seem more efficient....that's what all performance enhancing devices on smaller engines are...they're not performance enhancing, they're effectively efficiency enhancing by replacing the performance giving displacement.


I'll hold back on my sensationalist statements for my own sanity from now on. You seem like the kind of person who'd take me to court for not actually flying over.


I'll happily concede one here.....I was on crack about it being dropped...I must have been living off the change to single VANOS for some of the M models over here. For that error, I apologise. The rest of my points still stand strong though.

VANOS, as a new technology designed with efficiency in mind, had problems when launched. Big problems. Problems that led to rough running and rattling engines on a substantial number of vehicles.

Cadillac 4-6-8, as a new technology designed with efficiency in mind, had problems when launched. Big problems. Problems that led to rough running on a substantial number of vehicles.


How untrue, and how different are those statements?



The fact that BMW stuck with theirs to eventually make it a success has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they both came unstuck trying to use new technology and that you only pick up on the GM fault, not the BMW one.

[79PonchoUK]

Seriously?

Do you think I don't know that?

User CP ---> Ignore

I don't suffer fools........period.

You are now completely irrelevant. Run along. The adults are having a discussion....

Adults? you're not acting very mature. Is WMHJR your friend? Is that why? I hope this place isn't cliquey.
I don't have anything against WMHJR, for the most part it's just a debate. If someone is wrong, it doesn't make them a fool. I don't think anyone in this topic is a fool....all seem pretty intelligent.

I think you know exactly what your statement looked like it was implying. I suppose I shouldn't make assumptions in the future.
There's no need for you to be a **** about it though.

Fact remains, in 91, the big 3 hadn't lost a third of their market share. If they had, plenty of companies have swallowed up such drops in less time than 20/30 years. lol. Most manufacturers have just had to deal with a 50%+ drop in sales in the space of a couple of years.

I suppose the problem comes back to unions making downsizing impossible....a problem their competitors never

[79PonchoUK]

So you're saying that musclecarjohn is a dolt? Nice. And you're saying that even if Ford offers a premium product and a customer pays that premium, they don't deserve to get what they're paying for? Because you think it's a "truck for christsakes"?

Hmmmm.... Don't get me wrong. I haven't owned a Ford truck in years. The interior of my '04 Dodge is craplastic. I really don't care. I bought it for the Cummins and the 6spd - used. But if it were my daily driver and I bought it new, I'd care.

WTF is a dolt? lol