Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Why does the federal government bother with a budget?
A good question to be asked, since they borrow and create about as much "money" as they want to at present. The still must play-act at having a "budget" for a while longer. It's all done for appearances now. The Congress does set borrowing limits, but the word "limit" has absolutely no meaning in the sense that it's always raised as the need arises. The government couldn't give up on the pretense of a budget; if they came right out and said to the world, "We're just gonna print as much as we want and foo on you," then all the borrowers of the world would know the game was up, the dollar would go down the toilet completely, and what? They'd start all over again with a "new dollar" that would wipe out the existing one. The new one would stink too; no overseas investors would touch it, but it would wipe out government debt and they could start all over again spending money. Think this couldn't happen? It's happened many times all over the world and it's called "devaluation of the currency." Argentina has done it many times. Repudiate the debt, wipe out the currency, start spending all over again.
Are Capsule Hotels coming to your neighborhood?
Not long ago, I posted a partially tongue-in-cheek comment about converting airliner seats to sleeping tubes and I used the "tube motels" in Japan as an example. Just a few days ago, there was a New York Times article about these, actually called "Capsule Hotels." They have these not only at the airports, but around other transportation centers in large Japanese cities. Originally, they were designed for travelling businessmen who might've missed their last train home and needed a convenient and inexpensive place to stay.
If you are old enough, you may remember in the late 1970's and most of the '80's, when we thought we were in danger of Japan buying out the entire USA. Well, they got into some financial trouble of their own and have been mostly in recession for some time. The capsule motels tell some of that story. Homeless people, who were unheard of in Japanese society in the 1970's and '80's, are some major customers for the capsule motels now. The capsules measure a bit over two yards by two yards and are not high enough to stand up in. The rent is about $30 a night but lately owners of these motels have granted reduced long-term rates to the homeless occupants.
People of influence in government and finance in the US had a chance to learn from the lessons of the "price asset bubble" in Japan that burst in 1989 but of course they didn't. At the peak in Japan, prime real estate in the Ginza district of Tokyo was selling for $93,000 per square foot and today some of this sells for one percent of its peak price. In fact, a good deal of the excess liquidity that was created in Japan and needed an investment outlet came to the US and was lent out as easy money, contributing greatly to our own bubble economy. We can hope that the long, lingering non-recovery of Japan's bubble economy will not be repeated here but at this time we can only wait and see.
If you are old enough, you may remember in the late 1970's and most of the '80's, when we thought we were in danger of Japan buying out the entire USA. Well, they got into some financial trouble of their own and have been mostly in recession for some time. The capsule motels tell some of that story. Homeless people, who were unheard of in Japanese society in the 1970's and '80's, are some major customers for the capsule motels now. The capsules measure a bit over two yards by two yards and are not high enough to stand up in. The rent is about $30 a night but lately owners of these motels have granted reduced long-term rates to the homeless occupants.
People of influence in government and finance in the US had a chance to learn from the lessons of the "price asset bubble" in Japan that burst in 1989 but of course they didn't. At the peak in Japan, prime real estate in the Ginza district of Tokyo was selling for $93,000 per square foot and today some of this sells for one percent of its peak price. In fact, a good deal of the excess liquidity that was created in Japan and needed an investment outlet came to the US and was lent out as easy money, contributing greatly to our own bubble economy. We can hope that the long, lingering non-recovery of Japan's bubble economy will not be repeated here but at this time we can only wait and see.
Why pickup trucks are what they are now
The problem with full-size pickups is that over the past couple of decades, they just started building them way too fancy and blown-out. None of the US makers offer a plain-Jane, no frills big pickup. The last time I looked at them at the Ford dealers they didn't even have one with a simple, two-door cab without the extended anything. Buyers are just as much to blame as the manufacturers; they started insisting on having every luxury and gee-gaw on their pickup as they had on their Cadillac. And what manufacturer is going to give up that profit treasure-trove? The styling on contemporary full-size pickups is all "huge" as if, let's see who can build the biggest truck and I'm not talking about the bed, but the cab. But then again, that's a buyer's preference, as look at all the SUV's. Look at the tire sizes. Yes, I know all about ground clearance, but when every soccer mom needs 20 inch tires to clear asphalt, that's the limit.
Yeah, the whole idea of owning pickups has kinda gotten turned on its head. Pickups at one time were "working vehicles" and only people who really needed one bothered to spend the money on it. Nowadays, lots of people buy trucks who don't need them; they just think, "I've gotta have a truck" (to haul that 5 gallon plant back from Home Depot once or twice each spring as an example). I hear the phrase, "I've gotta get me a work truck." Heck, all trucks are supposed to be for work but the buying public has often turned them into something else. The guy who wants to get a "work truck" might have a perfectly good two or three year old truck at home that he's driving already but it's too good for work, I guess. Lots of people around here who do have trucks leave them sit most of the time. Worse than that are the people who use an F-250 Diesel to drive a couple of miles down to the convenience store and back for a pack of Hostess cupcakes.
My cargo carrier is still my '72 Ford station wagon. It's a big fuel burner for sure, but that's about all it costs to run it. Add regular oil and filter changes as required on the 351C engine. No computer, just an inefficient carburetor that I can take off in five minutes and blow the dirt out of. Last year, an axle bearing got noisy and I had to replace that which wasn't too much strain. I've kept a nice Indestro axle puller from the old days. The bearing was made in China and cost $40; the last one I replaced on another car was $25 and made in USA. Off-shoring those parts makes good money for the middleman. Let's see, what else. Oh, the battery was old but still turning the engine over; it was nine years old so I bought a new one at the NAPA store. I don't like to wait until I've gotten my last crank out of one; who knows where that might take place. Once in a while I've gotta replace the ignition points and condensor, but that's about 20,000 miles worth. I let one set go over 40,000 miles once in my '66 Fairlane and when it started acting up, I pulled off the cap and found that the disc on one end was completely burned off. Still running, though. Let's see, door mechanism on driver's side started to not let me in from the driver's door (where else? It gets the most use), so took it apart, made an adjustment so it's good for another who knows how many miles. Nagging little stuff like that.
I can still remember most of the old pickups my dad owned over the years. Let's see, the first one I can remember was a fairly ratty '56 Ford F-100 with a tired 292 V-8 engine (complete with external oiling for the rocker shafts due to bad camshaft bearings). Then he had a '36 Ford flathead V-8 with the long gearshift that came out of the floor; I used to drive that one to high school some days. Next was another tired '56 Ford F-100 but this one had a '57 Lincoln Mark II engine and automagic transmichigan in it. That one was pretty fast, and after while he painted it but sold it shortly thereafter. Sometimes he would fix cars up real nice, then someone would make him a tempting offer he couldn't refuse. After that, he bought a '69 Ford Torino GT Ranchero, which had a 351W engine in it and was pretty fast but not much for hauling loads because after all, it was only a passenger car chassis. The last pickup he owned before he died was a 1979 Ford F-150, the slickside with no chrome on it and small, dog-dish style hub caps. Under the hood, it had a big, thirsty 460 V-8. He bought it new at a very distressed price that year when gasoline doubled in price (think Shah of Iran). He was going to haul a travel trailer with it, and he did some but got sick with cancer not long after and never used it to its full potential. After he died, the truck sat around with only 30K miles on it and various family members would borrow it from my mother every once in a while to move something. She finally got tired of paying the insurance and license tabs for it and sold it with under 35K miles on the clock. I would've liked to have bought it, but at the time I was deep into raising kids and I just didn't have the extra money to do so.
When my dad bought that '79 F-150 new, he took out what they call "loss of income" or some kind of disability insurance, I think it was. The deal was, if he became disabled during the time he was making payments, the insurance was supposed to kick in and pay off the truck. Well, that actually happened. He paid on the truck for about six months or so before he was diagnosed with cancer and could no longer work. So, he got the truck almost for free, but that's a very hard way to get a truck.
Yeah, the whole idea of owning pickups has kinda gotten turned on its head. Pickups at one time were "working vehicles" and only people who really needed one bothered to spend the money on it. Nowadays, lots of people buy trucks who don't need them; they just think, "I've gotta have a truck" (to haul that 5 gallon plant back from Home Depot once or twice each spring as an example). I hear the phrase, "I've gotta get me a work truck." Heck, all trucks are supposed to be for work but the buying public has often turned them into something else. The guy who wants to get a "work truck" might have a perfectly good two or three year old truck at home that he's driving already but it's too good for work, I guess. Lots of people around here who do have trucks leave them sit most of the time. Worse than that are the people who use an F-250 Diesel to drive a couple of miles down to the convenience store and back for a pack of Hostess cupcakes.
My cargo carrier is still my '72 Ford station wagon. It's a big fuel burner for sure, but that's about all it costs to run it. Add regular oil and filter changes as required on the 351C engine. No computer, just an inefficient carburetor that I can take off in five minutes and blow the dirt out of. Last year, an axle bearing got noisy and I had to replace that which wasn't too much strain. I've kept a nice Indestro axle puller from the old days. The bearing was made in China and cost $40; the last one I replaced on another car was $25 and made in USA. Off-shoring those parts makes good money for the middleman. Let's see, what else. Oh, the battery was old but still turning the engine over; it was nine years old so I bought a new one at the NAPA store. I don't like to wait until I've gotten my last crank out of one; who knows where that might take place. Once in a while I've gotta replace the ignition points and condensor, but that's about 20,000 miles worth. I let one set go over 40,000 miles once in my '66 Fairlane and when it started acting up, I pulled off the cap and found that the disc on one end was completely burned off. Still running, though. Let's see, door mechanism on driver's side started to not let me in from the driver's door (where else? It gets the most use), so took it apart, made an adjustment so it's good for another who knows how many miles. Nagging little stuff like that.
I can still remember most of the old pickups my dad owned over the years. Let's see, the first one I can remember was a fairly ratty '56 Ford F-100 with a tired 292 V-8 engine (complete with external oiling for the rocker shafts due to bad camshaft bearings). Then he had a '36 Ford flathead V-8 with the long gearshift that came out of the floor; I used to drive that one to high school some days. Next was another tired '56 Ford F-100 but this one had a '57 Lincoln Mark II engine and automagic transmichigan in it. That one was pretty fast, and after while he painted it but sold it shortly thereafter. Sometimes he would fix cars up real nice, then someone would make him a tempting offer he couldn't refuse. After that, he bought a '69 Ford Torino GT Ranchero, which had a 351W engine in it and was pretty fast but not much for hauling loads because after all, it was only a passenger car chassis. The last pickup he owned before he died was a 1979 Ford F-150, the slickside with no chrome on it and small, dog-dish style hub caps. Under the hood, it had a big, thirsty 460 V-8. He bought it new at a very distressed price that year when gasoline doubled in price (think Shah of Iran). He was going to haul a travel trailer with it, and he did some but got sick with cancer not long after and never used it to its full potential. After he died, the truck sat around with only 30K miles on it and various family members would borrow it from my mother every once in a while to move something. She finally got tired of paying the insurance and license tabs for it and sold it with under 35K miles on the clock. I would've liked to have bought it, but at the time I was deep into raising kids and I just didn't have the extra money to do so.
When my dad bought that '79 F-150 new, he took out what they call "loss of income" or some kind of disability insurance, I think it was. The deal was, if he became disabled during the time he was making payments, the insurance was supposed to kick in and pay off the truck. Well, that actually happened. He paid on the truck for about six months or so before he was diagnosed with cancer and could no longer work. So, he got the truck almost for free, but that's a very hard way to get a truck.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Here we go again with Yemen
Are we going to commit armed forces to an invasion of Yemen now that we've "discovered" that terrorist activities are originating there? Using this logic (the "Afghanistan Logic"), how many s**tbird countries are we willing to invade? Somehow, our leaders have decided that trying to kill off the source of this terrorism where it originates is the best policy to protect us here within our own borders. Maybe a serious reevaluation of this logic is called for. It's possible that it would be more effective to actively and throroughly police our own borders (sea, land and air) than using the needle in a haystack approach trying to root terrorists out of remote caves over hundreds of thousands of square miles. Even when we squash terrorist activity in a limited area, the terrorists draw back until we leave, then return and resume their activities (proven to be the case in Afghanistan).
In addition to policing our own borders effectively, we could use intelligence to make surgical strikes on known targets of high value, much like Israel did on Iraqi nuclear reactors. That ended Iraq's quest for the A-bomb. By sending large, conventional forces to flail and flounder around in the wilderness while the terrorists look on and laugh is expensive, stupid and ineffective.
In addition to policing our own borders effectively, we could use intelligence to make surgical strikes on known targets of high value, much like Israel did on Iraqi nuclear reactors. That ended Iraq's quest for the A-bomb. By sending large, conventional forces to flail and flounder around in the wilderness while the terrorists look on and laugh is expensive, stupid and ineffective.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Let's Make Air Travel More Comfortable
The long-delayed, much-ballyhooed so-called "Dreamliner" took off today for the first time not far from here. The two chase jets, which looked like some kind of fighter plane, soared over my house but the 787 took off to the northwest and couldn't be seen by me. For one thing, it's all forested around my house so they have to fly pretty close to directly overhead for me to see them. I stood out on my deck and listened to the distant engine sounds of takeoff, and through the window watched the video on TV on CNBC to see the plane lift off the runway.
The name "Dreamliner" somehow holds out the promise of more comfortable air travel, doesn't it? One of my complaints about air travel is the cramped, uncomfortable space and waste of time just sitting there. My solution would be to arrange the plane in a series of narrow sleeping tubes instead of seats. These wouldn't take up any more space and you could stretch out and go to sleep; that would eliminate the crowded feeling and the waste of time. Maybe the plane could be arranged so that part of it was sleeping tubes, and part seats for those people who like to be crowded, smell the b.o. of their seat-mates, and get coughed on.
Have you ever seen pictures of those sleeping tubes in the airport in Japan? For people experiencing lengthy waits for connecting flights, they can rent a sleeping tube to lay down in; I think they even have a TV in the far end to watch in case you just want to recline but not sleep.
If it was up to me, I'd eliminate first class seating in commercial airplanes entirely. I'm class-conscious enough that I don't need to be humiliated and humbled by walking through the "big seat" area before I must wade back to my miserable coach seat. I know the airlines love first class passengers because they can soak them for a ridiculous sum of money to avoid travelling with the unwashed masses. Kind of like buying your way out of military service in the Civil War. That's one reason I kinda like Southwest Airlines, the "Bus of the Air" which has only coach seating, no butt-kissing first class area. Besides, the first class area is taking up valuable space that could be converted to sleeping tubes.
One time years ago when I was a soldier in the army, I was travelling by bus and my route of travel took me through the Greyhound bus terminal in San Francisco. I had to wait a couple of hours for a connection, so I sat on one of the slatted wooden benches (just like the ones you saw in Dirty Harry movies when they look for a suspect in that same bus terminal). Before long, I nodded off and I don't know how long I was napping before a SF cop came by, tapped me on the foot with his baton and said, "No sleeping in the terminal." Then and now I have thought this was unfair; I had a paid ticket in my pocket; was it my fault that the particular bus I needed to catch wasn't there yet?
The name "Dreamliner" somehow holds out the promise of more comfortable air travel, doesn't it? One of my complaints about air travel is the cramped, uncomfortable space and waste of time just sitting there. My solution would be to arrange the plane in a series of narrow sleeping tubes instead of seats. These wouldn't take up any more space and you could stretch out and go to sleep; that would eliminate the crowded feeling and the waste of time. Maybe the plane could be arranged so that part of it was sleeping tubes, and part seats for those people who like to be crowded, smell the b.o. of their seat-mates, and get coughed on.
Have you ever seen pictures of those sleeping tubes in the airport in Japan? For people experiencing lengthy waits for connecting flights, they can rent a sleeping tube to lay down in; I think they even have a TV in the far end to watch in case you just want to recline but not sleep.
If it was up to me, I'd eliminate first class seating in commercial airplanes entirely. I'm class-conscious enough that I don't need to be humiliated and humbled by walking through the "big seat" area before I must wade back to my miserable coach seat. I know the airlines love first class passengers because they can soak them for a ridiculous sum of money to avoid travelling with the unwashed masses. Kind of like buying your way out of military service in the Civil War. That's one reason I kinda like Southwest Airlines, the "Bus of the Air" which has only coach seating, no butt-kissing first class area. Besides, the first class area is taking up valuable space that could be converted to sleeping tubes.
One time years ago when I was a soldier in the army, I was travelling by bus and my route of travel took me through the Greyhound bus terminal in San Francisco. I had to wait a couple of hours for a connection, so I sat on one of the slatted wooden benches (just like the ones you saw in Dirty Harry movies when they look for a suspect in that same bus terminal). Before long, I nodded off and I don't know how long I was napping before a SF cop came by, tapped me on the foot with his baton and said, "No sleeping in the terminal." Then and now I have thought this was unfair; I had a paid ticket in my pocket; was it my fault that the particular bus I needed to catch wasn't there yet?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Grape Nuts Need to be Soaked
Cereals have been one of my favorite foods since I was a child. In those days, adults called them "Breakfast Food" and didn't eat them much. Cereals were for kids.
One of my long-time favorites is Post "Grape Nuts". I'd better not let Post hear me say that or they'll discontinue them. That's the usual outcome for any food product that you fall in love with. I'm still pining away for General Mills "Jets" but that's another story.
The trouble with Grape Nuts is that they are so dog-gonned hard. They might more accurately be named, "Gravel Nuts" as far as I'm concerned. They are definitely for people with good teeth if not soaked. I usually soak mine for about a half an hour before consumption. That's just about the right amount of time; any less and they are still somewhat hard; any more and they start to dissolve into a liquid lacking any substance at all. Well, maybe I'll want to do that some time in the future when I have no teeth left, and I'm eating cereal through a straw.
I gave up on just plain milk on my cereal decades ago; I only use half and half. Anything less just tastes too watery. So, the Grape Nuts get sugared, then immersed in half and half, with about a half inch of liquid covering them. The extra half and half allows for expansion of the cereal as it soaks.
Yeah, I know consuming half and half will kill me. Everyone is going to die, it's just a mere matter of timing. I don't have many other vices; no tobacco, no alchohol, no drugs, so artery clogging and hardening half and half isn't the worst of it.
Then there are the lovely Grape Nut Flakes. These do not require soaking; in fact, you must be careful to eat them in a timely manner or they quickly turn to mush once liquid is applied. These must be eaten with some care, too, as they tend to have a laxative effect.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The State of Ford Car Quality
I've been a Ford guy all my life. I've come to appreciate that, in spite of their complexity, the newest cars are the very best ever made. It's ironic that the best cars from Detroit come at a time when the economy is in the dumper, but that's life.
We had many flatheads when I was growing up, Fords ('35, '36x3, '40, '50), Mercury, ('40), and Lincoln ('36, '37, '39, '41x several, '42x 2, '46) and Ford trucks (36, 44, 47). When I hear the phrase, "Flatheads Forever" it makes me laugh. Flatheads are the reason that overheads were invented. A guy comes up and slaps the fender on the '40 Ford, "Now that's real metal; they don't make them like they used to" which of course is true, because they don't have to. Metallurgy has improved over the years so that the don't have to make stampings out of that old, soft, thick stuff. And those heavy castings that look so robust? They are thick because that's the only way they could make them strong yet inexpensive in those days. Drop one on the floor and it's history.
Ah, then the first overheads came along in the early 1950's. First, an inline six in 1952 (burned as much fuel as a V-eight). Then the Y-block in 1954. A wonderful improvement over the flathead, they went through cam bearings pretty fast then next the rocker assemblies. The bodies on the Fords of the '50's were fairly fragile, cheap steel that rusted very quickly. Front suspensions on Fords blew out pretty fast with heavy service. The lovely 6 volt electrical system finally went away in 1955.
Next, the 1960's started out with lots of cheapie designs inspired by Robert McNamara except for a few like the Lincoln, and this successful design was scabbed off of a project initially designed for T-bird. By some chance of fate, McNamara's penny-pinching by combining two engineering processes resulted in two pretty good cars. Once McNamara left, they could get to building decent cars and the mid to late 1960's are a kind of golden era, but there were lots of gas hogs and much cheap sheet metal. Small block V-eight engine development was something you can point to as a success story.
Next, much of the '70's was a lost decade of mostly poorly-fit and made cars in general, lots of kitschy styling in line with all the other bad taste of the era (hair, clothes). Oddly enough, some of the less expensive lines and models looked better than the loaded-up ones. No fault of the manufacturer, the onerous burden of emissions controls dragged down the performance of these cars. They spent most of the decade continuing to make gas-hogs when the writing was on the wall about fuel price and availability. Really poor sheet metal.
The '80's was a decade to mostly forget, with a few exceptions. Lots of shoddy, drive until they break down and throw away models. Lots of bogus engineering used in an attempt to bridge the old with the new, all at the expense of the consumer. Redesigned T-Bird of 1983 one kind-off exception. Emission considerations begin the use of computers. You won't see many of these for sale in Hemming's Motor News in 15 or 20 years. It was during this time that they finally started making the car bodies in ways so that they didn't melt away after a few winters.
Things were looking up in the '90's, when Ford started to take quality control seriously. It only took 20 years to wake up to the inroads that Japanese cars are making into market share. Computerized engine controls become pretty much "perfected" (if there is such a thing as perfection), and turn out to be of significant benefit in increased fuel mileage.
So, by the early 21st Century, you can finally get a pretty well-made, nicely styled Ford product that will last a long time with very little maintenance. Bringing this back down to earth is the realization that some of the increases in quality come as a response to keep lawyers at bay -- make them better in the first place, and you won't be in court as often. Forget about working on it much yourself, but that's been the case for a while. The good thing is, that they are made well enough that they don't need much attention outside of routine maintenance for quite a while. But when they do, hold on to your wallet.
Now I'm not being critical of just Ford, because many of these comments apply to the other US manufacturers. One other thing, I think that some of the best GM and Chrysler products ever offered are being sold new right now. They have to build a product that people will buy. No longer will people buy any old thing they make.
We do have an excuse for buying all of those old cars when they were new -- we didn't know any better.
We had many flatheads when I was growing up, Fords ('35, '36x3, '40, '50), Mercury, ('40), and Lincoln ('36, '37, '39, '41x several, '42x 2, '46) and Ford trucks (36, 44, 47). When I hear the phrase, "Flatheads Forever" it makes me laugh. Flatheads are the reason that overheads were invented. A guy comes up and slaps the fender on the '40 Ford, "Now that's real metal; they don't make them like they used to" which of course is true, because they don't have to. Metallurgy has improved over the years so that the don't have to make stampings out of that old, soft, thick stuff. And those heavy castings that look so robust? They are thick because that's the only way they could make them strong yet inexpensive in those days. Drop one on the floor and it's history.
Ah, then the first overheads came along in the early 1950's. First, an inline six in 1952 (burned as much fuel as a V-eight). Then the Y-block in 1954. A wonderful improvement over the flathead, they went through cam bearings pretty fast then next the rocker assemblies. The bodies on the Fords of the '50's were fairly fragile, cheap steel that rusted very quickly. Front suspensions on Fords blew out pretty fast with heavy service. The lovely 6 volt electrical system finally went away in 1955.
Next, the 1960's started out with lots of cheapie designs inspired by Robert McNamara except for a few like the Lincoln, and this successful design was scabbed off of a project initially designed for T-bird. By some chance of fate, McNamara's penny-pinching by combining two engineering processes resulted in two pretty good cars. Once McNamara left, they could get to building decent cars and the mid to late 1960's are a kind of golden era, but there were lots of gas hogs and much cheap sheet metal. Small block V-eight engine development was something you can point to as a success story.
Next, much of the '70's was a lost decade of mostly poorly-fit and made cars in general, lots of kitschy styling in line with all the other bad taste of the era (hair, clothes). Oddly enough, some of the less expensive lines and models looked better than the loaded-up ones. No fault of the manufacturer, the onerous burden of emissions controls dragged down the performance of these cars. They spent most of the decade continuing to make gas-hogs when the writing was on the wall about fuel price and availability. Really poor sheet metal.
The '80's was a decade to mostly forget, with a few exceptions. Lots of shoddy, drive until they break down and throw away models. Lots of bogus engineering used in an attempt to bridge the old with the new, all at the expense of the consumer. Redesigned T-Bird of 1983 one kind-off exception. Emission considerations begin the use of computers. You won't see many of these for sale in Hemming's Motor News in 15 or 20 years. It was during this time that they finally started making the car bodies in ways so that they didn't melt away after a few winters.
Things were looking up in the '90's, when Ford started to take quality control seriously. It only took 20 years to wake up to the inroads that Japanese cars are making into market share. Computerized engine controls become pretty much "perfected" (if there is such a thing as perfection), and turn out to be of significant benefit in increased fuel mileage.
So, by the early 21st Century, you can finally get a pretty well-made, nicely styled Ford product that will last a long time with very little maintenance. Bringing this back down to earth is the realization that some of the increases in quality come as a response to keep lawyers at bay -- make them better in the first place, and you won't be in court as often. Forget about working on it much yourself, but that's been the case for a while. The good thing is, that they are made well enough that they don't need much attention outside of routine maintenance for quite a while. But when they do, hold on to your wallet.
Now I'm not being critical of just Ford, because many of these comments apply to the other US manufacturers. One other thing, I think that some of the best GM and Chrysler products ever offered are being sold new right now. They have to build a product that people will buy. No longer will people buy any old thing they make.
We do have an excuse for buying all of those old cars when they were new -- we didn't know any better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
