- #1572 of 3958
-
Re: Ford's tough [elroy5]
by gagrice
-
Dec 13, 2008 (2:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Dec 13, 2008 2:05 pm)
worth more as scrap metal than cars at this point.
That may be true. However my wife's 1990 LS400 is still going strong and gets driven 3 or 4 times per week. It may be worthless as a trade-in. It is still a very reliable car for us to have. No good reason to sell it at scrap prices. We will just keep driving it until something expensive fails.
|
- #1573 of 3958
-
Re: Ford's tough [elroy5]
by lemko
-
Dec 13, 2008 (2:30 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Dec 13, 2008 2:05 pm)
One man's trash is another man's treasure. As far as I'm concerned, my old Caddy and Buick are worth their weight in 24K gold and flawless diamonds.
|
- #1574 of 3958
-
Re: Ford's tough [explorerx4]
by elroy5
-
Dec 13, 2008 (2:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Dec 13, 2008 2:10 pm)
For a long time CR was considered the lone source of un-biased (no advertising $$) thorough testing information available. This did not bode well for the Detroit 3 in the 80's and 90's, because their cars were "sub-par", and CR said so.
|
- #1575 of 3958
-
Re: Ford's tough [lemko]
by dino001
-
Dec 13, 2008 (4:17 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Dec 13, 2008 2:30 pm)
Then go and buy them - I'll be last to stop you. Of course as a loyal supporter, you will buy at MSRP+$2000 ADM (dealer fund) + $2500 (UAW fund), won't you? Oh, I forgot - it's not about you - it's abou making ME buy their cr.., I mean product. Of course, that's on top of my taxes going now to Gettelfinger election comittee...
|
- #1576 of 3958
-
Re: government loans [dtownfb]
by clancey
-
Dec 13, 2008 (5:08 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Dec 13, 2008 1:34 pm)
I am not against unions per say - Just this union or others that do not want to accept the market forces. Each agreed to a contract - It would not matter if the union workers made $125.00 per hour and the company could make a profit selling their product ( cars, whatever ) But when you hold up the American taxpayer for money because you cannot make a profit both parties need to consider changes. If not, you fold, and another company will come along and figure out how to do so with a profit. The Dems seem to support the unions no matter what - it does not seem to matter if its cars or sub par public education. Restructuring the big three will not destroy the country.
|
- #1577 of 3958
-
Re: Listened to Ed today [tired_old_dave]
by iwant12
-
Dec 13, 2008 (5:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: tired_old_dave (Dec 13, 2008 1:46 pm)
I presume you're talking about Ed Wallace. I have the utmost respect for that man, listen to his show when I can, and read his articles every Sunday in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. In fact, I save Wheels for last, as I consider it the most important part of the entire paper!
|
- #1578 of 3958
-
Re: government loans [gagrice]
by clancey
-
Dec 13, 2008 (5:16 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 13, 2008 1:36 pm)
Thank you - I agree with the c-11 - it will get them back on tract - As I said I have bought GM and Ford for over 30 years with one exception - my wife owns a 2006 Jeep Liberty with the 2.8 turbo diesel - very, very neat SUV - that engine in a Wrangler would be super.
|
- #1579 of 3958
-
Re: Ford's tough [elroy5]
by explorerx4
-
Dec 13, 2008 (5:29 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Dec 13, 2008 2:51 pm)
CR has a bias. it is not paid for by advirtising.
|
- #1580 of 3958
-
Ford yes Chrysler yes GM no
by robertc
-
Dec 13, 2008 (5:34 pm)
-
|
|
Ford and Chrysler build decent cars for the money. GM is overpriced junk maybe your grandmother has a 3.8 liter buick that is ok but GM cannot build a decent 4 cylinder or small V6 ...how about GM Air Conditioners, head gaskets, and brake problems that go on year after year and decade after decade un resolved. Please let GM go and save Chrysler and Ford we consumers will be better off without GM. Ford and Chrysler will do better withou GM around to stink up the reputation of the remaining 2
|
- #1581 of 3958
-
what about this question?
by explorerx4
-
Dec 13, 2008 (6:01 pm)
-
|
isn't the federal government supposed to look out for the best interest of the country as a whole?
why haven't they done anything that is not reactionary since when?
what is their plan to keep the usa ahead of the global curve?
sometimes the politics seems to cloud the focus.
|