Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Devils Tower, Wyoming

Devils Tower, WY Car Consumer Discussions

brochure photo

by michaell on Thu Oct 23 12:50:28 PDT 2008

Looks to be Monument Valley in northern Arizona. ky, I don't think the rocks are red enough to be Sedona. If the above guess isn't correct, then it may be at Devil's Tower in Wyoming (where "Close Encounters" was partially filmed). EDIT - right location, wrong state.

Re: $4 & $5/Gallon Gasoline... [hpmctorque]

by peetiedog on Fri Mar 07 22:31:49 PST 2008

You're right, the CV/GM/TC trio probably won't continue beyond the '09 model year, and definitely not past the '10 model, but it's not due to the gas mileage. It's due to another short-sighted decision from the ivory tower's executive round table. I'd be one of the first to admit that the Panther Trio in it's current configuration, is too long in the tooth to be a viable long term product offering. I just happen to believe that a nice facelift, a mild interior re-do, and a few up-dated gizmos would allow the old girls to soldier on for another 3-5 years (providing a sizeable up-tic in sales), until a new (worthy) rwd replacement could be brought to market. There hasn't been a significant face-lift in a decade, so they were long overdo, yet kept selling pretty well given the lack of attention afforded them, if you ask me. But alas, the time has come to bid adieu. Ford decided to move away from rwd platforms, in favor of fwd & awd. At the same time, GM and Chrysler developed a newfound affection for rwd, especially for their higher end cars, as did Lexus and Infiniti. And we all know what BMW, Jag and Benz feels about rwd; even Audi is moving to a rear-bias to their Quattro AWD system (especially for their high performance cars) to more simulate rwd predominant balance. And now, even Ford has recognized that it needs to re-develop more rwd offerings (duh!), and have started looking at their new Australian rwd platform for a possible North American adaptation. My question is: Ford, why give up your rear-wheel drive market to your competitors (even if for only a couple years), only to have to come back later and spend lots of money trying to win it back? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sounds like another of those famous Ford blunders in the making to me. Oh, and by the way hpmctorque, have you looked at the fuel economy ratings on the Taurus/Sable and even the Fusion/Milan/MKZ (no #'s on the MKS yet) compared to the CV/GM/TC? There's only between 2-4 mpg difference. And while that can represent a 10-15% improvement, many people would gladly trade that small of a difference for the other benefits the old Panther-girls offer. Things such as balance, durability, ride quality, stability, handling, safety, lower NVH, lower maintenance (especially front-end work), etcetera. When I take my Town Car on a road trip, let's say an 800+ mile round trip from Napa, CA to Los Angeles or Las Vegas. I average upwards of 21-22 mpg for the trip (and I average about 75+ mph trip speeds). Once I rented a Ford Fusion V6 for a trip to Las Vegas, thinking I'd save a lot of gas money. I only averaged 24 mpg for the trip, the ride quality while nice for a small car, was not even close to my Town Car. A lot buzzier, plus I felt a lot more exhausted and wound-up when I got there and when I got back home. The extra $13.00 I saved on the round trip (about 4 fewer gallons of gas @ $3.19 per gal), wasn't worth the lack of comfort, frustration and stress that came with the smaller, buzzier confines. What some people don't take into consideration is that those smaller, higher revving engines have to work a little harder than the loping, long legged, large car V8 engines when it comes to hill climbing and passing. And I don't believe they come anywhere close to the big, slower turning V8's when it comes to longevity either. I'm convinced that my Town Car's life expectancy is easily 250,000 or even 350,000 miles or more. I'd just like an updated version as would a lot of other people I know and talk to. And as far as gas goes, most of the big, comfy car buffs, like me, don't mind spending $200 - $250 a year in feeding costs for the benefits of a traditional, full sized rwd luxury car. Also I'm of the mind that there's no substitute for extra steel around you if in a major accident (say Town Car vs Accord in a head-on). As for as law enforcement is concerned, there is no substitute for rugged, well balanced, reliable, durable and economical (maintenance & repair wise). Suspensions, steering racks, transaxles (transmissions), tire wear, cooling systems, and more on the Taurus for example, would cost law enforcement agencies far more than the additional fuel charges of the Crown Vic cruisers. California Highway Patrol (and other state's trooper agencies), along with large municipal law enforcement agencies (like L.A.P.D. and L.A. County S.O.) have intensive endurance testing programs for their police cruisers. And year after year, the old fuddy-duddy Ford Crown Vic just keeps on coming out on top, in spite of it's age and weaknesses. Besides, when you're responding to an officer in distress' call for back-up, or when in pursuit of a fleeing felony suspect (jumping over curbs & bottoming out on road dips), I don't think anyone is too concerned about another couple miles-per-gallon. Besides they're the government, they just pass the costs on to us. Taxi services are just as concerned or more about durability, longevity and maintenance costs, which once again tend to favor the good ole Crown Vic. And as far as limo & livery services are concerned, how many front wheel drive stretched limo's have you seen lately, even Cadillac DeVilles (DHS); they're almost as rare as stretched Hummers. Even the livery trade doesn't want fwd cars. They cost too much for maintenance & wear, reliability & durability is far worse, and comfort & ride quality is nowhere near as good. Next time you see a few limo drivers take your own unscientific poll, you'd be hard pressed to find 10% of the owners & operators who'll disagree with that. These people are business people, they don't buy Town Cars because they're all Lincoln enthusiasts; they buy them because they are the best product & value on the market for what they need. My question is: Why, why, why Ford, would you give up this market that has become your birthright, only to have to try and fight to get a piece of it back later? I just don't get it. The MKS, as nice as it is, will not really replace the Town Car with the limo & Livery market, sure you'll see a few stretched MKS' and executive livery cars (sort of a fashion statement, like a stretched Navigator). I think the Chrysler 300 will probably get the lion's share of that market, and Cadillac is working on a full size rwd vehicle that I'm sure will eventually take a piece of that market as well. When Ford does finally bring a viable rwd car to market 4 or 5 years from now, they'll have to fight to get back into that market, which will be expensive; and do you really expect Chrysler and GM to just hand their market share back to Ford, or do think they'll fight like the dickens to keep it?

The "Game".

by perna on Wed May 23 13:26:00 PDT 2007

There is a famous chain of electronics stores in Michigan that is really the last of its kind. Unlike the "big box" guys, these guys sell electronics like cars; everything is openly negotiable, and a lot of the sales tactics are the same. I went in there with a buddy of mine because he wanted to buy a projector these guys happen to sell, and I knew we could get a MUCH better deal from them than the big box stores. However, once we got inside it was clear my friend did not have the stomach for it. Once the high pressure started, he buckled and wanted to leave. I took control of the situation and offered a OTD price, which the salesman had to go to "the tower" for. My friend at that point lost his mind, and I dropped a few things for him to think about. The fact of the matter is that if you see something with a price tag on it, it's not a "good deal" for anyone but the owner of the store. It doesn't matter if it's "on sale". If you pay the price the store sets, you left money on the table. "But", my friend said, "I feel abused by this place. They are like sharks that smell blood, and they think I'm an idiot." My response is that the people who persevere in high pressure sales situations learn several valuable life lessons in the process. The skill of negotiating is a good one to have. Not only that, but you come out of the store knowing that you paid FAR less than the thousands of people who buy electronics at the "big box" places (for the record my friend saved $300 even over the Internet vendors), all because they didn't have the skill or stomach for negotiation. The price for saving this money is the time spent negotiating, and subjecting yourself to questionable sales tactics. Some people say that playing with the snakes makes you slimey; in my opinion, if you can game the snakes, you beat the devil. The point I'm making is that maybe the best deals can be had at the slimiest of car dealerships, because those salespeople have the least pride. You can look at it as giving money to the "bad guys", or you can look at it as saving the "good guys" a minimum commission. :) Am I off the wall? I feel much better slamming a slimeball liar of a salesperson for every last penny, rather than a salesperson who is kind and patient. I know if I was dealing with isell or any of the folks on here, I'd probably end up paying sticker. :P One topic that I don't think has ever been brought up in the 5 years I've been reading the "Inconsiderate Buyers" cum "Stories from the Sales Frontlines" is how salespeople are able to detect someone's 'slime-o-meter'. In other words, how do they know how much pressure to apply before someone snaps and bolts due to discomfort with the process?

Re: 2000 Sonata rusted subframe [firebirdjohnny]

by hotrod54 on Fri May 11 17:40:56 PDT 2007

I don't know what part of the country you are in or if you are the original owner...but let me relay some information to you and I hope it helps/puts things in perspective. I used to run a tire and service store. We had to replace the subframe on a Dodge Intrepid, a Cadillac Sedan Deville and some mid 80's, early 90's GM junk. Also Put a Mustang in the air and the front wheels folded inwards. The reason/common denominator? Rust...and all the cars were originally from snow belt regions of the country. The Mustang did not need a subframe but the shock towers had rusted out. It was the quantity of salt/abrasives in winter that did these cars in (and I'm sure many more than I saw}. The solution is frequent washings with chassis baths. This may be what happend with your car. Hope it helps. So you see, it can be any car. :D

Re: Heavy Haulin [li_sailor]

by jipster on Tue Mar 06 12:26:48 PST 2007

What's confusing is... Sorry for the confusion, but in playing devils advocate with your position , I'm trying to show that if one is showing a linear relationship between points A and point C... then one has to go thru point B. Point A is that large SUV's are excessively (we know what excessive means) dangerous in their design. High mass, bumper height, rollover prone, pollution, poor gas mileage etc... these SUV's are dangerous and wasteful machines, whether towing a boat or not... correct? Point B is Joe Consumer in his Toyota Prius. Enter Point C(any SUV driver), that is, if you are not towing that 500lb boat/trailor when you T-Bone Point B and that Prius... there is no risk benefit equation... you could have been driving something more suitable/appropriate for the occasion. The Prius owner is dead... and there was absolutely no related benefit if nothing was being towed. This once a year SUV tower had a couple bags of groceries in the back seat. Now, impractical you say? Well, I would say if you have the means to be pulling a 5000lb boat/trailer, then you probably have the financial means to driving something more practical when SUV is not in actual towing mode. Or, one can always do what you do...borrow an in-laws vehicle to tow. But, say I do accept your risk/benefit equation,and say one shouldn't incur the risk of the SUV unneccesarily. How often is it acceptable to take this risk? How many times a year do I have to tow my boat, with my large SUV, to come out on the ethical side of the equation? So, using your position, I maintain, that for you to say SUV's are ethical only when necessary is illogical. You should say SUV's are ethical only when "required"... that is, used only when towing. :)

Re: Lincoln is toast [m1miata]

by nvbanker on Mon Nov 27 18:10:52 PST 2006

Seems that Cadillac won the game = checkmate-game over. -Loren I would put it more that Cadillac has won this round, for sure, but the game isn't over yet. If it were, we could have said the reverse in about 1990, when Lincoln was outselling Cadillac, because their line was new, and the Town Car was great, and their other cars were unique and interesting, and Cadillac was pushing around Broghams with 350CID Chevy engines and carburators! The DeVille and everything car they had were boring, and poorly made. We could have said the same thing in 98 when Lincoln debuted the Navigator, GM was chuckling in the glass tower until the sale reports came in, and then they hastily gussied up a Denali and put a wreath & Crest on it and called it an Escalade, and voila, the damn thing actually sold! I would have said match over then for Cadillac, and Lincoln won again. Now, the shoe is definitely on the other foot, and while Cadillac has reinvented itself, Lincoln has been purposefully neglected, downright castrated to a miserable parody of the dignified name it carries, and Bill Ford should be ashamed of himself. It's his fault. He's never given a rip about Lincoln, and still doesn't. I don't know if it will ever recover or not, but if it does, it will be Mulally who does it, not the Ford family. If Edsel ever sobered up and came out of the ether, he'd be livid at what Bill has done to his grandfather's car.