The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 152 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Re: Mozilla Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:23:31 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are CAFE standards for light trucks with less than 8500 lb GVWR. Gary Derian > > Huh? What government regulation? Pickups aren't even included in CAFE. > Magnesium isn't especially expensive as a material either; VW used to use it > extensively in the old air-cooled Beetle. Sounds as if Ford is raping > everybody on parts pricing - nothing familiar there, eh? > > And BTW, the new Ford F150 pickup weighs some 500 lb *more* than the model > it replaces. > > Neil > 96 M3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:36:14 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- >From: ben keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I suspect his point is that the magnesium rad support >(which is _far_ more than just a "radiator mount" >as it likely serves as the entire front structure of the >truck's body and is involved in the crash structure >as well) is somehow a result of a desire to reduce >weight and improve fuel economy. perhaps something >of a stretch, perhaps not, I'm not on the program so I >don't know the calucus that went into using a relatively >exotic material for the rad support. Ben, That was exactly my point. Perhaps you are right that the "radiator mount" is a significant structural component, rather than the decidedly less critical part I was envisioning. You may also be correct about the use of magnesium for it's properties in a crash as part of a "crumple zone" etc. but I suspect that similar results in that regard could be accomplished with less exotic materials and a different design. What do you do at Ford? My other car is a supercharged 94 Cobra. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:21:54 -0500 From: "Jamie Howton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----Original Message----- <SNIP> My point was that I suspect magnesium was used to reduce weight in order to meet fuel economy requirements <SNIP> You guys have got it all wrong, it's not magnesium at all it's that new "Quiet Steel" that Ford's marketing department invented ;-). Just being a smarta$$, I have nothing of value to offer. Regards Jamie Howton 2002 330i 2001 F-250 (with regular old "loud steel") 2000 Focus 1995 M3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:24:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 22, 2004 8:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" >>on 4/21/04 11:26 PM, Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> That's completely out of control! A $300 magnesium radiator mount on a >> pickup truck? Another hidden cost of government regulation... > >Huh? What government regulation? Pickups aren't even included in CAFE. You'd better let the Federal government know - they seem to be under the mistaken impression that they are. :-) The fact that vehicles categorized as light trucks have less stringent standards under CAFE should not be confused with the absence of standards, and those standards get tougher for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 model years for a total of 1.5 mpg or roughly 7.25% vs. the 2004 light truck standard. See section III starting on page 3. The light truck standards are in the middle of page 4. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/factshts/fefact01.pdf >Magnesium isn't especially expensive as a material either; VW used to use it >extensively in the old air-cooled Beetle. A quick check of metals prices online shows magnesium at $1.15/lb last month vs. .78/lb for unalloyed aluminum. That's almost a 50% increase in materials cost. While magnesium may not be terribly expensive in absolute terms, it's significantly more expensive in relative terms. Granted, the specific Al alloy that might be appropriate for the application might be more expensive, but I have no idea which one that would be so I went with the unalloyed price. >Sounds as if Ford is raping >everybody on parts pricing - nothing familiar there, eh? Maybe. I don't know enough (OK, anything) about manufacturing magnesium parts to guess at what additional costs a supplier might have in equipment, tooling, etc. vs. Al. I know that for instance Titanium requires an investment in special tools. > >And BTW, the new Ford F150 pickup weighs some 500 lb *more* than the model >it replaces. And your point? There are a lot of factors to consider: Is it bigger than the previous model? More load capacity? More power? Safer? Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:54:44 -0400 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mozilla Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would just add that Netscape (browser and e-mail client) is based on Mozilla (at least originally it was) and is similarly resistant to viruses. Stan > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:19:38 -0700 > From: Steve Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Mozilla > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > John Bolhuis speaks up for Mozilla Firebird as a great browser. I > second this, as well as Mozilla Thunderbird for an email client. In all > the years I have been running on the internet (about 15+ years) I have > never had a virus infect any of my machines. I attribute this to not > running IE or Outlook email client. About 98+% of the incoming mail gets > dumped into the junk folder where it belongs. I get way less than 1% > false hits on junk mail, and about 3% of the real junk gets into my > inbox. These are very good statistics IMHO. I do run a virus scanner > once in a while, and it does find infected email messages in my email > trash folder, but the system has not been infected due to the way that > Thunderbird handles attachments. Give Thunderbird a try, you won't be > sorry. BTW, Firebird has been renamed to Firefox. > > This seems like a conflict of interest in some ways since I own over > 3000 shares of Microsoft, and I love it when folks buy their products. > But they need to do a better job! > > http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/ > http://texturizer.net/firefox/ > > Steve Albrecht > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:10:03 -0400 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks Gary, Rich, and Andy. I have been told by more than one source (I think even Bilstein?) that the only difference between the E30 Sport and HD shocks is that the Sports are designed to be used with shorter springs. The compression and rebound settings are the same or essentially the same. Now, as to how the Sport shock is designed to handle shorter springs, I have no idea. From what you all have said, it seems that the rods are almost certainly shorter. Whether the internal bump stops are different too, possibly, but who knows. It is conceivable that altering the internal bump stops could help a bit, but it seems very unlikely it would make much difference, if any. At the same time, I cannot say for certain that short springs ruin Bilstein HD shocks. I have heard from others, and I did have a 325iX with rather short springs and Bilstein HD front shocks that sprung leaks ... but one incident and a few anecdotal stories do not make it true. Stan > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:00:08 -0500 > From: "Andy Messer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Can't say for sure, but I don't think Sports are just HDs without bump > stops. You might call Bilstein and ask. > > I can say, however, that I have put about 70,000 miles on my iX (so far) > with H&R springs (29210 - iX specific) and Bilstein HDs (again, iX specific > - P36-0251 and B36-2028) with no problems whatsoever. > The springs lowered the car just about an inch, which is roughly stock iS > height. > > Andy > 88iX > > _________________________________________________________ > > =========================================== > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It is also true on the Bilstein HD versus the Sport for the E30 as well in my research with the > Sport having a shorter rod length than the HD (compression and rebound quite similar though). The > Front Sport is ~18mm shorter IIRC. Therefore, trimming the HD bump stop doesn't result in a > conversion to the Sport. The Sport is a shorter damper in extended and collapsed length than the > HD. I would not recommend cutting the bump stop in an HD unless someone confirms it is > excessively long (like 3" or greater). > > The Bilstein bump stop issue was largely an issue in the E36 M3 application from what I can recall > where the bump stop is simply too long (it exceeds 3" IIRC) in that application, even with stock > springs, where the car will basically ride or very quickly engage the bump stops in their travel. > I don't even believe it was an issue in garden variety E36s with stock springs (but it was if they > used lowering springs or E36 M3 springs). Trimming the bump stop in half gained about 1" - 1 1/2" > of travel and still maintained the bump stop protection to the damper. > > Regards, > > Rich > > _________________________________________________________ > > =========================================== > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:13:44 -0400 > From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I dunno. From my research on E34 Bilsteins, the sport has a shorter rod. > In that case, the difference is 17mm. > Gary Derian > > _________________________________________________________ > > =========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:26:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Gary, Rich, and Andy. I have been told by more than one source (I > think even Bilstein?) that the only difference between the E30 Sport and HD > shocks is that the Sports are designed to be used with shorter springs. The > compression and rebound settings are the same or essentially the same. Now, > as to how the Sport shock is designed to handle shorter springs, I have no > idea. From what you all have said, it seems that the rods are almost > certainly shorter. Whether the internal bump stops are different too, > possibly, but who knows. It is conceivable that altering the internal bump > stops could help a bit, but it seems very unlikely it would make much > difference, if any. Here is some of the data I had for E30 Bilstein shocks: part name extended collapsed travel rebound compression P30 0128 HD 616.0 mm 520.0 mm 96.0 mm 2220 850 P30 0334 Sport 596.0 mm 502.0 mm 94.0 mm 2220 850 P36 0136 HD 612.5 mm 517.0 mm 95.5 mm 2355 805 P36 0335 Sport 594.5 mm 515.0 mm 79.5 mm 2330 750 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:46:01 -0400 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks! These are the regular E30 325i shocks? Which are the front and which are the rear? I notice that the lower pairing has quite a bit of difference in the travel, while the upper pairing does not. And on the lower pairing the HD actually has higher rebound and compression?? Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:26 PM > Here is some of the data I had for E30 Bilstein shocks: > > part name extended collapsed travel rebound compression > > P30 0128 HD 616.0 mm 520.0 mm 96.0 mm 2220 850 > P30 0334 Sport 596.0 mm 502.0 mm 94.0 mm 2220 850 > P36 0136 HD 612.5 mm 517.0 mm 95.5 mm 2355 805 > P36 0335 Sport 594.5 mm 515.0 mm 79.5 mm 2330 750 > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:27:14 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Most drivers have little ability to sense constant bump stop bashing and think the new ride is due to the new stiff springs. The Bilstein stops are very gentle and gradual. They don't crash when bottomed but create an odd asymmetric ride movement because the resulting spring rate (spring + bump stop) is very high. When asked, they like the new suspension. I went through this phase myself [this $800 suspension must be good] for about a week, then realized what was happening. Now I have springs nearly double the stock rate, a ride height just a few mm lower than stock, and I don't have to slow down for speed bumps, railroad tracks or any reasonable obstacle. The car is firm (E34M5) but not harsh at all. Gary Derian > Thanks Gary, Rich, and Andy. I have been told by more than one source (I > think even Bilstein?) that the only difference between the E30 Sport and HD > shocks is that the Sports are designed to be used with shorter springs. The > compression and rebound settings are the same or essentially the same. Now, > as to how the Sport shock is designed to handle shorter springs, I have no > idea. From what you all have said, it seems that the rods are almost > certainly shorter. Whether the internal bump stops are different too, > possibly, but who knows. It is conceivable that altering the internal bump > stops could help a bit, but it seems very unlikely it would make much > difference, if any. > > At the same time, I cannot say for certain that short springs ruin Bilstein > HD shocks. I have heard from others, and I did have a 325iX with rather > short springs and Bilstein HD front shocks that sprung leaks ... but one > incident and a few anecdotal stories do not make it true. > > Stan > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:00:08 -0500 > > From: "Andy Messer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Can't say for sure, but I don't think Sports are just HDs without bump > > stops. You might call Bilstein and ask. > > > > I can say, however, that I have put about 70,000 miles on my iX (so far) > > with H&R springs (29210 - iX specific) and Bilstein HDs (again, iX > specific > > - P36-0251 and B36-2028) with no problems whatsoever. > > The springs lowered the car just about an inch, which is roughly stock iS > > height. > > > > Andy > > 88iX > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > It is also true on the Bilstein HD versus the Sport for the E30 as well in > my research with the > > Sport having a shorter rod length than the HD (compression and rebound > quite similar though). The > > Front Sport is ~18mm shorter IIRC. Therefore, trimming the HD bump stop > doesn't result in a > > conversion to the Sport. The Sport is a shorter damper in extended and > collapsed length than the > > HD. I would not recommend cutting the bump stop in an HD unless someone > confirms it is > > excessively long (like 3" or greater). > > > > The Bilstein bump stop issue was largely an issue in the E36 M3 > application from what I can recall > > where the bump stop is simply too long (it exceeds 3" IIRC) in that > application, even with stock > > springs, where the car will basically ride or very quickly engage the bump > stops in their travel. > > I don't even believe it was an issue in garden variety E36s with stock > springs (but it was if they > > used lowering springs or E36 M3 springs). Trimming the bump stop in half > gained about 1" - 1 1/2" > > of travel and still maintained the bump stop protection to the damper. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rich > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:13:44 -0400 > > From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I dunno. From my research on E34 Bilsteins, the sport has a shorter rod. > > In that case, the difference is 17mm. > > Gary Derian > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:18:42 -0400 From: "Chris Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bilstein Bump Stops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wonder if I am also one of these. I bought the TMS Bilstein/H&R combo for my '94 325i. One or two years ago, I can't remember. Anyway, it includes the Bilstein Sports with H&R Sport springs that lower the front by 1.5". Am I likely to have the bump stop issue? It seems strange to me that TMS would sell a package with this known deficiency, but I'm not smart enough to know if the ride I have exhibits this problem or not. It's definitely quite a bit harsher than stock, but that's all I know. Chris B. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Derian Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] Bilstein Bump Stops Most drivers have little ability to sense constant bump stop bashing and think the new ride is due to the new stiff springs. The Bilstein stops are very gentle and gradual. They don't crash when bottomed but create an odd asymmetric ride movement because the resulting spring rate (spring + bump stop) is very high. When asked, they like the new suspension. I went through this phase myself [this $800 suspension must be good] for about a week, then realized what was happening. Now I have springs nearly double the stock rate, a ride height just a few mm lower than stock, and I don't have to slow down for speed bumps, railroad tracks or any reasonable obstacle. The car is firm (E34M5) but not harsh at all. Gary Derian > Thanks Gary, Rich, and Andy. I have been told by more than one source (I > think even Bilstein?) that the only difference between the E30 Sport and HD > shocks is that the Sports are designed to be used with shorter springs. The > compression and rebound settings are the same or essentially the same. Now, > as to how the Sport shock is designed to handle shorter springs, I have no > idea. From what you all have said, it seems that the rods are almost > certainly shorter. Whether the internal bump stops are different too, > possibly, but who knows. It is conceivable that altering the internal bump > stops could help a bit, but it seems very unlikely it would make much > difference, if any. > > At the same time, I cannot say for certain that short springs ruin Bilstein > HD shocks. I have heard from others, and I did have a 325iX with rather > short springs and Bilstein HD front shocks that sprung leaks ... but one > incident and a few anecdotal stories do not make it true. > > Stan > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:00:08 -0500 > > From: "Andy Messer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Can't say for sure, but I don't think Sports are just HDs without bump > > stops. You might call Bilstein and ask. > > > > I can say, however, that I have put about 70,000 miles on my iX (so far) > > with H&R springs (29210 - iX specific) and Bilstein HDs (again, iX > specific > > - P36-0251 and B36-2028) with no problems whatsoever. > > The springs lowered the car just about an inch, which is roughly stock iS > > height. > > > > Andy > > 88iX > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > It is also true on the Bilstein HD versus the Sport for the E30 as well in > my research with the > > Sport having a shorter rod length than the HD (compression and rebound > quite similar though). The > > Front Sport is ~18mm shorter IIRC. Therefore, trimming the HD bump stop > doesn't result in a > > conversion to the Sport. The Sport is a shorter damper in extended and > collapsed length than the > > HD. I would not recommend cutting the bump stop in an HD unless someone > confirms it is > > excessively long (like 3" or greater). > > > > The Bilstein bump stop issue was largely an issue in the E36 M3 > application from what I can recall > > where the bump stop is simply too long (it exceeds 3" IIRC) in that > application, even with stock > > springs, where the car will basically ride or very quickly engage the bump > stops in their travel. > > I don't even believe it was an issue in garden variety E36s with stock > springs (but it was if they > > used lowering springs or E36 M3 springs). Trimming the bump stop in half > gained about 1" - 1 1/2" > > of travel and still maintained the bump stop protection to the damper. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rich > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:13:44 -0400 > > From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I dunno. From my research on E34 Bilsteins, the sport has a shorter rod. > > In that case, the difference is 17mm. > > Gary Derian > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > =========================================== > > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:18:06 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Brian, the first paragraph was facetious. My point was the second one. To elaborate, a single magnesium casting can replace a multi piece weldment for equal or less money when all is said and done. I have no access to Ford's costing information, but certainly there is a great deal of cost pressure on every part used in the truck. Even if the casting cost more, it may have reduced assembly time, or even reduced repair time. Don't automatically assume something relatively exotic is more expensive. I suspect the real issue is Ford's markup of crash parts. Such sales can be a nice profit center for the company. I don't like CAFE standards any more than I think you do. They are a large part of the US consumer's move to SUVs. If we really wanted to reduce fuel consumption in the US, the best way is for prices to rise. Let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of capitalism allocate resources to most efficiently use less fuel in an environment of expensive fuel. Gary Derian > Gary, > > Maybe you're being facetious, it's hard to tell in print. My point was that I suspect magnesium was used to reduce weight in order to meet fuel economy requirements, not that there was some regulation specifically mandating magnesium radiator supports. Yes, Ford employees decide what to use, but regulation places significant constraints on those decisions. Absent those constraints a less exotic, less expensive material might have been substituted. I have a feeling that a radiator mount made of aluminum or steel subject to the same markup would be priced significantly lower than the $300 magnesium part. > > Brian > > I'm pretty familiar with vehicle regulations. I've never seen the section > that mandates magnesium radiator supports. Can you cite the section? > > Whatever the exact truth, Ford people decide what to use, and also what to > charge for crash parts. > > Gary Derian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:04:01 -0500 From: Dennis Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wonder if those "Luddites" want the makers to bring back the good old days - pre-crumple-zones? No air bags, lap belts only - those things will kill ya! No need to repair much after a wreck, but you do need to find a new owner for the car. The cars are now designed to destroy themselves to save your life. That sounds super when you are buying the car, but not so good when paying the insurance premium and to the insurance companies when paying for the repairs. Of course, I would rather pay more and be safer as would most right-thinking folks :-) Back when air bags were optional, the insurance companies gave a discount if you had them (you could call your agent for a quote on a car with bags optional and it would be less with them). Then they started paying claims on blown bags, so they switched up and started charging MORE for air bag cars. I DO think the makers are now a better job with things like seat sensors so they don't blow up the bag when no one is in that seat. Bags or no bags, I am pretty sure I would want MY car totalled if it was rolled - I don't think I would feel as safe with a rolled and repaired car. I remember the spokesman for one the crash tests talking about the makers needing to do a better job with lower leg "injuries" the dummies were getting in the crash tests. He followed up that criticism with the remark that just a few years ago the lower leg injuries were not even noted and recorded - because the dummies would be "dead" due to the other injuries. My daughter "tapped" the back of a Ford SUV a few years ago, it put a little bitty tear in her bumper cover thanks to the energy absorbing bumpers. The SUV bumper just caved and bent down to the tune of > $1,500. The guy at the body shop said they get dozens of Ford SUVs in every month with the exact same repair. Due to the poor design (trucks excluded from the bumper standards) you have to replace the brackets and usually the entire bumper with even the slightest tap. I guess Ford gets to make a fortune in parts while my daughter had to pay an "accident premium" on top of her normal insurance for the next 3 years. Dennis 01 M5 silver/black At 09:18 AM 04/22/2004 -0400, Robinson, Lee wrote: >FWIW, this article is complete drivel. > >Let me get this straight, they are complaining about a 3-series with tons of >airbags that saved a teenager being totalled? Maybe they would've preferred >he perished in favor of his father not having to buy a new car. Sounds very >Darwinist to me....ironic huh? > >FWIW, if I rolled my new 3 series, you bet yer a$$ I'd want all new safety >stuff. They're complaining about not being able to re-use seatbelts!!!! I >thought that was a basic thing, safety equipment is a one-use thing. > >Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Daley > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 23:41 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [UUC] "New cars are getting too expensive to fix" > > > > > > > > > > Dennis Liu wrote: > > > > >Start your lamentations now... > > > > > >vty, > > > > > >--Dennis > > >_________________ > > >http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p13s02-wmgn.html > > > > > >Work & Money > > >from the April 19, 2004 edition > > > > > >New cars are getting too expensive to fix > > > > > >By Eric C. Evarts | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor > > > > > ><snipped> > > >For example, the > > >world's bestselling vehicle, Ford's F150 pickup, uses a > > magnesium radiator > > >mount - which gets crunched every time an F150 runs into > > anything. Magnesium > > >is strong and light, but brittle. Even if it bends without > > breaking in an > > >accident, a body shop can't bend it back. Like air bags, it has to be > > >replaced at a cost of more than $300. > > > > > >To meet fuel-economy requirements, automakers are using more > > lightweight > > >parts. Magnesium, titanium, and carbonized plastic are among > > the rapidly > > >expanding number of components found under the hood. > > ><snipped > > > > > That's completely out of control! A $300 magnesium radiator > > mount on a > > pickup truck? Another hidden cost of government regulation... > > > > Brian > > '94 325ic > > > > > > Search the > > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ____________ > > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of > > the BMW CCA. > > > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > > >Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > >UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate >Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! >908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(12 messages) **********
