Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Cumberland, Rhode Island

Cumberland, RI Car Consumer Discussions

Re: comfortable speeds of 75-80 mph [kernick]

by grbeck on Fri Nov 14 13:31:27 PST 2008

kernick: You're kidding right? Please post a link - like Consumer reports stating vehicles are having hazardous lift at 80mph. I've heard that once you exceed 80 mph, the evil flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz will descend on your car and flip it over. ;)

Re: What will Obama do about 55 [cdn_tch]

by grbeck on Fri Nov 14 13:24:31 PST 2008

cdn_tch: Most drivers aren't concerned because they don't think about it. They'll complain about how much it costs to fill their tank and then peel out of the gas station. Most people have figured out that, at higher speeds, vehicles do consume more gasoline. If they choose not to act on this information, that is their concern, not mine. The most productive approach to this sort of question is to not confuse individual whining with a need for a new law. cdn_tch: Pleasure, yes, I'll agree with that; Convenience, doubtful; Extra safety, no, speed increases risk We've been through this before; on limited access highways, higher speeds do no correlate to increased risk, and, if anything, faster drivers are safer than slower drivers. Unless we believe that a very limited number of accidents involving drivers who are not necessarily representative of every driver somehow "prove" otherwise. If speed increased risk, then the death rate per 100 million miles would be skyrocketing; it is not. It is declining, even though people are driving at higher speeds, and have been for several years now. If you doubt this, you are welcome to accompany me on our next trip, which will involve various interstates in Pennsylvania, so that you will become better informed. cdn_tch: Comparing 10 mph to 70 mph in this discussion is irrelevant. It's absolutely relevant, because it shows that more pollutants are emitted at lower speeds, which are more prevelant during stop-and-go driving. If you are really concerned about decreasing pollution, you would be advocating steps to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, not requiring everyone to obey an arbitrary, counterproductive and artificially low speed limit on limited access highways. cdn_tch: What are the stats on 60 vs 70 vs 80 mph? Also where is the information from? Please provide a link so we can all learn. The increase is negligible for volatile organic compounds (VOCs); it is higher for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (from 60-70 mph). The information can be found here: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/smog-cars/doe-veh-pollutants.pdf. Today's vehicles are, if anything, even cleaner than their earlier counterparts. (Note, for example, that for newer vehicles, the increase in pollutants at higher speeds is smaller.) Reducing speeds on limited access highways to reduce air pollution would be even more of a waste of time. cdn_tch: With 3 Trillion vehicle miles driven, the increase ends up being substantial. You are making the same mistake that you accused that public service message on the billboard of making. So all three trillion of those vehicle miles are at 75 mph on limited access highways? Do you really believe this? The simple fact is that if you want to control pollution, you will, a. target clunkers that generate the most serious pollution, and b. do as much as possible to eliminate stop-and-go driving. cdn_tch: Yes, unregulated gasoline powered engines do pollute more but that does not make it OK to pollute more with a car. Except that the intelligent approach to solving these problems requires wisely targeting sources that will give the most bang for the buck. Given how remarkably clean new vehicles are - a brand-new Ford Explorer emits fewer pollutants running than a brand-new 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted while standing still, with the engine shut off - it is a waste to time to worry about the very small increase in emissions generated by people driving 75 mph as opposed to 55 mph (if such an increase even exists with new vehicles). Especially since history has shown that people do not slow down for artificially low speed limits on limited access highways anyway, unless we post a police officer at virtually every mile of interstate highway, thus resulting in a serious misallocation of police resources to enforce a dumb, misguided law. The most productive - not to mention the informed - approach is not to pass the dumb law in the first place. ;)

Re: No bailout without addressing the UAW [dallasdude1]

by grbeck on Fri Nov 14 08:30:10 PST 2008

So the National Labor Committee is supposed to provide us with an unbiased picture of how Toyota treats its workers? Next, I guess you'll be telling us to visit the Chevy dealer to get an unbiased review of the Camry....

Re: UAW Contact with GM [210delray]

by grbeck on Thu Nov 13 13:52:35 PST 2008

It's not that GM built big cars or full-size trucks and SUVs. The problem was that it treated smaller vehicles as an afterthought. You can tell by looking at any Cavalier or Cobalt that GM's heart really wasn't into it. GM was pretty much phoning it in when it designed those vehicles. The Silverado is an impressive vehicle, as is the Corvette. The Cobalt is what you rent for a trip, or buy because it came with enough money on the hood to choke a horse. Toyota makes big trucks and SUVs, too. It just rolled out an all-new, bigger Tundra, and a revamped Sequoia. But it also kept the Corolla and Camry current. Those models weren't treated like the red-headed stepchildren. Ford, at least, appears to have figured this out - it is rushing the new Fiesta and Focus into production, revamping the Fusion and Mustang for 2010 and has a restyled Taurus waiting in the wings. But it is also keeping the F-150 up-to-date. Regardless of gas prices, a buyer should find something attractive in Ford showrooms, once it gets the new passenger cars into production. Provided, of course, that Ford lasts that long...

Re: The American People have spoken.... [dtownfb]

by grbeck on Thu Nov 13 13:43:19 PST 2008

dtownfb: The dumbest thing Wagoner could have done is announce to the world that GM will run out of money by January. Who wants to invest in this company knowing that it is a better than average chance, it may not be around come 2009? Even if he hadn't said anything, the information would have been contained in the various reports that GM is required to file. Eventually people who study the industry would have pieced it together, and figured out just how much money GM has left.

Re: No bailout without addressing the UAW [rockylee]

by grbeck on Thu Nov 13 07:25:58 PST 2008

rockylee: Well at least these hacks are doing something to save good paying jobs !!! Are those hacks telling GM to build better products, close down divisions and bring wage and benefit levels into line with the transplant operations? Sorry, but those hacks need to learn that jobs exist to make products that people want. If people don't want the products, there is no reason for the job - or company - to exist. As hard as it may be to accept, car companies are for-profit enterprises that exist to make products that people want, and thereby earn a profit for shareholders. They are not social welfare agencies for blue- and white-collar employees. rockylee: Well Europe and Japan, discourage foreign investment !!! Which is why GM completely owns Opel of Germany and Vauxhall of Great Britain, and Ford has a wholly owned subsidiary based in Germany and Great Britain. And why Saab is owned by GM, and Volvo is owned by Ford. And why GM has owned stakes in Suzuki and Subaru, and Ford still owns a controlling interest in Mazda. rockylee: Try importing a car into China !!! A red herring. No Chinese-made cars are imported into the U.S. and won't be for another 10-15 years. rockylee: Superior to what ??? To the minds of the sheep who read Pol Pot Reports ??? Ostriches who stick their head in the sand regarding Consumer Reports test results have absolutely zero credibility. Lots of people read the magazine; they are are all potential customers. (And for the record, more than a few independent mechanics I've spoken to all agree that Consumer Reports results are largely accurate.) Lots of us are sick of the arrogant Detroit attitude that customers are obligated to ignore all criticisms of Big Three vehicles because they "owe" something to the UAW, or Big Three management. The recent action of Alan Mullaly of Ford is much more productive - he brought his top engineers to the magazine's facilities and forced them to listen as Consumer Reports staff critiqued Ford's cars. rockylee: Yeah you are right because the Japanese, have purchased the automobile media outlets !!! The Japanese auto makers have bought up EVERY media outlet, and every organization that tests vehicles? Sorry, but you are clutching at straws. This is what desperate people whose world is collapsing around them believe, because the truth hurts too much. rockylee: The statistics show quite the opposite of what you are saying. Are going to try to convince me that a Camry is made better than a Malibu ???? You can't be serious ??? When the long-term reliability results from surveys conducted by Consumer Reports or Truedelta.com show proof of this, let me know. I want long-term results, not results measuring the first 90 days of ownership. rockylee: You know beter than that but that is the perception folks have. As imidazol97, has pointed out on numerous occassions that GM, cars have as few problems as Toyota's !!! Sorry, but attempting to extrapolate reliability based on Edmunds.com postings is a faulty method for a variety of reasons, and we've pointed this out numerous times. rockylee: What's frightening is we have so many ignorant people in this country. They let one issue consume their way of thinking even if it effects their wallet and way of life !!! With those two sentences, you've neatly summed up the main problems with your outlook on life. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that too many UAW members and GM management personnel share these views.