Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Ely, Nevada

Ely, NV Car Consumer Discussions

no title

by kens on Wed Oct 06 17:13:23 PDT 2004

Patti, Loosh's daughter's name is Elie Ann: lucien2 "Subaru Crew: Photo Gallery" Oct 1, 2004 5:16pm Ken

Re: Subaru at SEMA [paisan]

by lucien2 on Wed Nov 05 05:19:07 PST 2008

agreed....At this time, the bars they were selling were actually rebadged bars for the STi from another maker. Yes, the back bar fit, but the stock lateral links couldn't take it. So that meant $500 worth of STi lateral links. Then the endlinks failed. That was more problematic, because there were no direct replacements that had the right geometry without also bolting up struts and springs from an 04 STi. And there was something different enough about the Forester in front, presumably geometry, that caused the upgraded front bar to rub against something. Well, it was a hollow bar, so eventually it suffered a catastrophic failure and snapped in two. I wasn't the only owner with the problem. What blew my stack was that Cobb never openly admitted to rushing the parts into service- eventually conceding that Trey's FXT suffered the same problems, but only at the track, so I must have been racing. In my view, track punishment is simply accelerated road punishment, so what's the difference? And of course I never tracked it, not on stock struts, that's too risky. Eventually they offered to sell me a new and improved set of bars for 30% off. Needless to say, I stopped doing business with them and put the car back to stock, leaving theSTi lateral links on there for good measure, since they made a difference, even stock. Now, as you know, I'm no whiner, and am probably patient to a fault with vendors. I was very, very disappointed in the whole affair, especially with Cobb. Others forged ahead with experimenting on the cars, but my shade tree wrenching days were fast coming to a close with the approach of Elie's birth. I learned to live with the car in stock form, plus a good set of wheels and summer tires, until I sold it. That little Impreza that followed, now THAT was turning into something interesting. WRX brakes alone transformed the car. I miss it....but it made no fiscal sense to keep it once the company car arrived. Maybe when I have more disposable income in the future I'll have a little project again, but for the next few years, I'll live vicariously through you! :)

Re: jimbres [dallasdude1]

by grbeck on Mon Aug 04 10:17:24 PDT 2008

dallasdude: So you don't think that tax rebates work? The stimulus check was given to Americans because GW wanted to be remembered as a kind president? It wasn't just President Bush...the local paper ran a story yesterday that featured a quote from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi taking credit for the most recent stimulus package. dallasdude: You were mentioning that auto makers were unable to get the govt to enforce the Sherman anti trust Act. Where does it cost any firm to enforce the law of the land? Laws such as the Sherman Anti-trust Act are not enforced by private firms (or individuals). They are enforced by government, perhaps in response to a complaint by a company or individual. But companies do not enforce laws. The government can, in fact, choose not to act on a company's complaint. dallasdude: Without interchangeable parts the assembly line is worthless. Eli was the first machinist and inventor of the cotton gin. Interchangeable parts for the auto industry began when Henry Leland applied the principles of firearms production to Cadillacs, with the result that in 1908, the 1907 Model K Cadillac won the very prestigious Dewar Trophy. Henry Leland was noted for the use of precision manufacturing techniques that brought interchangeable parts to the automobile industry. Prior to his work, parts had to be either made individually for each car, or "forced" to fit. dallasdude: He would absolutely have been UAW. Given his talents and abilities, he would have OWNED any company (as the Lelands and Henry Ford did) producing his products, and therefore been in management. Which means that, by law, he could not have joined any union, even if he wanted to (which I doubt). dallasdude: Ford was not any great inventor but rather a pathetic soul. The assembly line is a no brainier. He was a superb visionary, and several of the cars developed on his watch - the Model T, the Model A and the 1932 V-8 - were brilliant for their times. He was personally responsible for their development. The layout of his factory and his use of inventory control methods were studied by the Japanese and later refined by Toyota. That hardly qualifies him as "pathetic." If the adoption of the assembly line was such a no-brainer, then one wonders why no one else adapted it to auto manufacturing to the extent that he did (although Ransom E. Olds had made tentative steps in that direction in the early 1900s). After all, he wasn't the only person making cars in 1908. His failures were in administration. Ford was a poorly run company by the mid-1930s, unable to adequately respond to the competitive threat represented by GM and Chrysler. He did not delegate enough responsibility to his son, Edsel Ford I, who showed brilliance in the area of styling and knew that Ford needed to adopt more advanced engineering features. Unfortunately, Henry Ford I insisted on keeping the solid axle front suspension, and even held off on adopting hydraulic brakes until the 1939 model year. He also put way too much faith in Harry Bennett, who was a thug and a bully. Ford's decision to allow Bennett to handle the company's response to early unionization attempts was disastrous. There is also evidence that in the late 1930s he suffered a series of minor strokes that impaired his abilities. But Ford was a family-owned company then, so unless his family moved against him (as his daughter-in-law finally did in 1945, when she demanded that he step aside in favor of her son, Henry Ford II, or else she would sell her share of the company), there was nothing that anyone could do. dallasdude: So then it reasonable to assume that all the qualified workers will compete to get hired by the union shop. Hence, the cream of the crop will work at the best paying job. Not necessarily. There are geographic considerations (unlike college-education people, most blue-collar people are reluctant to move great distances for a job), as well as other factors (some people prefer a more flexible work place, and don't like getting paid the same as a slacker). dallasdude: Its good to know that the skills and abilities of the UAW union worker are superior to those of the non union market rate job. There is no proof of this. If anything, assembly quality of transplant vehicles made by non-union labor in the U.S. is superior to that of vehicles made with UAW labor. Trust me, I've examined them closely. The gap has been narrowed greatly in the past decade, but it's still there. We can debate until the cows come home as to which party is responsible for this, but there is no proof whatsoever that having a unionized blue-collar workforce results in either better build quality or superior reliability in the auto industry.

Re: jimbres [dallasdude1]

by credulity on Sun Aug 03 19:54:15 PDT 2008

Of course the "stimulation checks" don't work. All it does is destroying the value of the dollar. How can it possibly help the real standard of living? The government doesn't provide any real service or good in printing those "stimulation checks." If the scheme could work, shouldn't counterfeiters who print up millions of fake dollars be praised as national heroes instead of being criminals? All the "stimulation checks" printing did was wasting thousands of man-hours printing them, wasting good trees and ink in the process. More money now chase the same amount of goods, so prices go up . . . people can actually buy less than before because the man-hours, trees, ink and gasoline for delivering those checks and material are wasted. Your argument that Atta's terrorist attack stimulated the economy just goes to show how absurd this whole "government stimulation" logic is. We are talking about real mass murderers and whole sale destruction of property in that instance. Fractional Reserve Banking is intrisicly insolvent whenever there is a run on the bank. The bank is promising all depositors/creditors that their demand deposit/short-term funds are available on demand, yet 95-98%% of the money is actually loaned out and not in the bank. If more than 2-5% of the people want their money at the same day, the bank is instantly insolvent . . . because the original promise is a lie to begin with. As such, any and all Wall Street banks are exposed to the kind of risk that Bear Stern was. Bear Stern was simply marked for destruction by other wall street firms when a whole sale bail out of the whole industry was required after the mortgage lending implosion. Why Bear Stern was picked? Because it refused to play ball at the LTCM bailout back in 1998. Read it up. "You were mentioning that auto makers were unable to get the govt to enforce the Sherman anti trust Act. Where does it cost any firm to enforce the law of the land? " Not sure what you are saying. Remember, rule of law was supposed to be what tax payment buys? The Eugene Debs' strikes were in effect violently expropriating property owners of their rightful properties. "Without interchangeable parts the assembly line is worthless. Eli was the first machinist and inventor of the cotton gin. He would absolutely have been UAW. Ford was not any great inventor but rather a pathetic soul. The assembly line is a no brainier. " So is interchangeable parts. My 12yr old cousin recognized the advantage of interchangeable parts when he was making mail boxes to earn pocket money. Comes to think of it, isn't Gutenberg's printing process built on the principle of interchangeable letters? That was almost 400 years old when Eli was making his muskets. Eli's primary fortune came from government contracts obtained through personal contacts, his armory was literally the equivalent of Haliburton of his time; his cotton gin prolonged slavery. If you insist he would have been a UAW man . . . "If you say that the union job pays more. So then it reasonable to assume that all the qualified workers will compete to get hired by the union shop. Hence, the cream of the crop will work at the best paying job. Its good to know that the skills and abilities of the UAW union worker are superior to those of the non union market rate job. Microsoft and Google offer above par wages in exchange for a workers services. Therefore, they get a superior employee aka the cream of the crop. " In case it's not obvious, MSFT has been losing talent left and right for the last 8 years! People with talent do not want to work for places where advancement is slow and future is tied in bureacratic quagmire. People can be untalented and overpaid at the same time: in fact, they are usually attracted institutions that guaratee a certain level of pay in complete disregard to productivity, such as union jobs. " You should know that in a free exchange of goods or services, both parties are happy and or feel an advantage in this economic free exchange. If the a company sits down at the table with the UAW and no one is twisting their arm and holding a gun to their head." What do you think strikes, picket lines, beating up of replacement workers and plant occupations are? Labor unions wouldn't survive a day if the employer is free to replace them with other workers who want to work. That's exactly what happened to the air traffic controller's union. Labor Union exist because FDR decided that a particular form of outright robbery was legal because union bosses were making political contributions and rounding up votes for FDR.

Re: jimbres [credulity]

by dallasdude1 on Sun Aug 03 17:42:45 PDT 2008

Consumption does not "fuel" the economy unless you mean burning it down! Work only has value to others and the economy to the extent that a free market place would price it (personal enjoyment does not have a value to others). So you don't think that tax rebates work? The stimulus check was given to Americans because GW wanted to be remembered as a kind president? Mohammed Atta redirected two planes . . . and the rebuilding effort is going to result in a lot of consumption . . . yes the GDP will count the rebuilding as economic activity, but anyone with a modicum of common sense understand that the massive destruction and rebuilding is not economic growth. If Mohamed Atta had been an evil genius and did all the "hard work" to build a nuclear bomb, subsequently blowing up a city . . . which necessitating the rebuilding of the entire city from ashes instead of "only" two buildings . . . the economy would have been hurt even more, not improved, despite what the government statistics would say about GDP as a consequence. You fail to factor in the multiplier effect of the wages paid to materials, construction, jet aircraft replacement, and the list goes on. These firms will have to add labor to produce the same buildings. When these folks spend these wages, they will create further demand. Cars, boats, homes, children, and a host of positive externalities. A smart man would think that Atta could have caused more damage if would have targeted the oil refiners. However, Atta is far from a MENSA membership. Bankers owning the economy and running it to the ground did not start in the 80's, or 1880's, or 1780's. It's as old as the mid-ages if not Roman times. It's always the bankers helping the government messing with people's lives in the name of "useful things" or "common good." The CEO and board at Bear Sterns opted not allow redemptions in their hedge fund. They went as far as not to even acknowledge the shareholders at their quarterly meeting. Ignoring these wealthy folks and not fielding their questions. they paid dearly with gold mine being shut down. Never ever under estimate the power of hedge fund investors. Banks and insurance companies are about as close to a sure thing as you will ever get. Actuarial tables and creating money is beyond having GOD powers. Reagan started the deregulation and they started acting like brokerage houses. If there was ever a case for capital punishment, we have been seeing them. There is no deterrent to ENRON and the likes. Public relations departments and teaching ethics in colleges/universities isn't going to stop the calculated crimes. Eugene Debs He was seen as a anti trust threat. This is the power the robber barons had back then. The law created to stop consolidation of power/wealth/collusion was used against a union wheel. You were mentioning that auto makers were unable to get the govt to enforce the Sherman anti trust Act. Where does it cost any firm to enforce the law of the land? Eli Whitney Without interchangeable parts the assembly line is worthless. Eli was the first machinist and inventor of the cotton gin. He would absolutely have been UAW. Ford was not any great inventor but rather a pathetic soul. The assembly line is a no brainier. I will repeat my point: any pay UAW workers receive beyond what the free market place would have given is the result of financial engineering. How is the union boss' pay for being the union boss any "touch labor"? Touch people with baseball bats or bullets? If you want to limit line workers' pay to that which would have been given in a free market place anyway for their labor, there is no point of having a union now, is there? If you want argue that their increased pay is good because then they can go buy things, then why don't we have 10 people getting paid the same for every single UAW worker that actually makes anything? Doesn't that lead to even more money sloshing around? As you can see, anything beyond what the free market place would have paid is pure and unadulterated financial engineering. . . without commesurate production, all that's "multiplied" is in effect debt, not wealth. Debt masquarading as wealth is the fundamental reason behind our nation's current economic woes. If you say that the union job pays more. So then it reasonable to assume that all the qualified workers will compete to get hired by the union shop. Hence, the cream of the crop will work at the best paying job. Its good to know that the skills and abilities of the UAW union worker are superior to those of the non union market rate job. Microsoft and Google offer above par wages in exchange for a workers services. Therefore, they get a superior employee aka the cream of the crop. You should know that in a free exchange of goods or services, both parties are happy and or feel an advantage in this economic free exchange. If the a company sits down at the table with the UAW and no one is twisting their arm and holding a gun to their head. Then they sign a collective bargaining agreement. Both parties saw value in getting into the agreement and therefore signed. It doesn't get any more capitalist than this. The Wagner Act makes this legal and shouldn't be confused with price fixing an anti trust violation. You just don't think that labor should have a representation. If you look at the sports stars, they have agents to do this specialize task. It works and baseball, football, basketball, or hockey haven't gone out of business. Who represents the corporate entity? Specialized people do, because we know that the company isn't its stockholders, but rather a separate entity. The UAW is the membership and not some dummy charter to limit liability.

Re: jimbres [dallasdude1]

by credulity on Sun Aug 03 14:36:16 PDT 2008

"To say that the hard working folks in these unions don't buy things which further fuels the economy is just not real. " Consumption does not "fuel" the economy unless you mean burning it down! Work only has value to others and the economy to the extent that a free market place would price it (personal enjoyment does not have a value to others). Mohammed Atta redirected two planes . . . and the rebuilding effort is going to result in a lot of consumption . . . yes the GDP will count the rebuilding as economic activity, but anyone with a modicum of common sense understand that the massive destruction and rebuilding is not economic growth. If Mohamed Atta had been an evil genius and did all the "hard work" to build a nuclear bomb, subsequently blowing up a city . . . which necessitating the rebuilding of the entire city from ashes instead of "only" two buildings . . . the economy would have been hurt even more, not improved, despite what the government statistics would say about GDP as a consequence. All of Atta's "hard work" had negative value regardless how hard he worked. If he consumed more while living on top the "consumption" that his destruction brought, he would have been an even bigger drain on the economy. The inability to distinguish consumption vs. economy (which should really be productivity valued by the market place) is behind much of the 20th century misery, including all the wars to stimulate the economy and government subsidies and programs to do the same. There is nothing to be proud of to be a consumer . . . any idiot can consume. The faulty caculation of giving workers more money than the market place would pay for such labor so that they can go consume and engage "the multiplier effect" inevitably leads the next logical step: namely, the work that the person does is quite immaterial, why not just give money to anyone, so they can spend it to engage "the multiplier effect"? The real multier effect that ends up getting engaged of course was the fractional-reserve fiat money creation, through ever expanding government debt . . . that what led to the whole sale replacement of US manufacturing by financial engineering. The amount that a factory worker gets paid for his labor at rates supported by a free market is the result of manufacturing economy; any amount beyond that is the result of a financial transfer, from other participants of the economy to the specially privileged worker . . . once that element of financial engineering is introduced, the flood gate is open to further financial engineering that goes out to support that other participants of the economy that just got ripped off for buying a car that cost more than it's worth . . . so on and so forth . . . multiplying effect indeed . . . until the whole economy is enslaved by the bankers doing those adjustments while taking a cut in the process. Bankers owning the economy and running it to the ground did not start in the 80's, or 1880's, or 1780's. It's as old as the mid-ages if not Roman times. It's always the bankers helping the government messing with people's lives in the name of "useful things" or "common good." Collective price setting is illegal in any industry, and anathama to any competitive market place. Not sure why "collective bargaining" should be treated differently. Frankly, I'm even willing to go so far as allowing people to collude in price for labor and goods . . . but nobody should be allowed to use baseball bats or even a picket line to physically threaten anyone ignoring such price collusions. Mafias vote too, but the result of their voting is not binding to non-members. Not sure why you brought up Eugene Debs; he did not run under the Democratic Party; his nomination was under "Socialist Democrat," a fringe Marxist party. Not sure why you brought up Eli Whitney either. Production line came to Henry Ford as an inspiration after seeing a meat processor in Cincinnati. In any case, "production line" idea must have occured in human history numerous times, just like "discovering the Americas." Ford just happened to be the right men at the right time when all the other elements were ready for rapid growth. I don't think Ford would have gone very far in today's high tax and high regulation world. "Thats my point that the value added/touch labor are UAW employees. Unlike the financial engineer you mention. To say that the hard working folks in these unions don't buy things which further fuels the economy is just not real. They make actual product which is tangible and sold to consumers. " I will repeat my point: any pay UAW workers receive beyond what the free market place would have given is the result of financial engineering. How is the union boss' pay for being the union boss any "touch labor"? Touch people with baseball bats or bullets? If you want to limit line workers' pay to that which would have been given in a free market place anyway for their labor, there is no point of having a union now, is there? If you want argue that their increased pay is good because then they can go buy things, then why don't we have 10 people getting paid the same for every single UAW worker that actually makes anything? Doesn't that lead to even more money sloshing around? As you can see, anything beyond what the free market place would have paid is pure and unadulterated financial engineering. . . without commesurate production, all that's "multiplied" is in effect debt, not wealth. Debt masquarading as wealth is the fundamental reason behind our nation's current economic woes.