Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
David, I'm not going to be much help, except that I DID get a right side convex mirror for my 1980 300SD. It's still there!! The downside is that was about 15 years ago... Sorry, but the memory has faded as to where I got it! Chuck Phoenix, AZ Convex glass would help. ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
David Brodbeck wrote: Loren Faeth wrote: THat is what i liked ( and still like) about the 108-112 (inclusive) cars GREAT visibility! 123s are not bad. Agreed...you sit low in a 123, but the visibility all around is pretty good. My only real complaint is the mirrors, which are kind of skimpy. In particular, the passenger side mirror is too small to be very useful with the flat glass they put in it. Convex glass would help. Mercedes figured that out about 20 years ago and all 201/124s have a larger passenger's side remotely adjustable mirror with convex glass. Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) der Dieseling Doktor [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
On 12/1/05, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I still haven't gotten used to the high beltlines and small greenhouses that designers favor, these days. I don't WANT to get used to that styling trend. It's terrible for visibility and headroom. I was interested in the Chrysler 300 at an auto show because it's gotten so much praise in the press---but compared to my 124, sitting in it feels like lying in a bathtub peering out through gun-slits. Alex Chamberlain '87 300D Turbo
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:38:00 -0800 Alex Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/1/05, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I still haven't gotten used to the high beltlines and small greenhouses that designers favor, these days. I don't WANT to get used to that styling trend. It's terrible for visibility and headroom. I agree. I've rented several different US cars in my business travels and really appreciate the visibility of my '82 240D/3.0. Craig
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
I don't WANT to get used to that styling trend. It's terrible for visibility and headroom. That's my complaint, too. Apparently, market research shows that most people like it, though -- it supposedly makes them feel safer and more secure.
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
THat is what i liked ( and still like) about the 108-112 (inclusive) cars GREAT visibility! 123s are not bad. At 12:22 PM 12/2/2005, you wrote: I don't WANT to get used to that styling trend. It's terrible for visibility and headroom. That's my complaint, too. Apparently, market research shows that most people like it, though -- it supposedly makes them feel safer and more secure. ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
Loren Faeth wrote: THat is what i liked ( and still like) about the 108-112 (inclusive) cars GREAT visibility! 123s are not bad. Agreed...you sit low in a 123, but the visibility all around is pretty good. My only real complaint is the mirrors, which are kind of skimpy. In particular, the passenger side mirror is too small to be very useful with the flat glass they put in it. Convex glass would help.
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
John Robbins wrote: 96- Ford trucks I like, and the 96+ are super bloated and plasticy looking to me. The new new ones scream I'm compensating for something! To me the proportions of the new ones look off...that huge tall tailgate, mostly. I guess I still haven't gotten used to the high beltlines and small greenhouses that designers favor, these days.
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
I have a 98 Ford F150 and I like the look of it well enough. I can't say that I like the 04-05 as well. They do look too big and too slab sided to me. However, check the crash statistics. The 04 and up performs much better than the earlier versions and much better than Dodge or Chevy. Sometimes you give up something for something else. I could live with the look if I was in the mood (financial) to swap to a newer truck. Randy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Brodbeck Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:59 PM To: Mercedes mailing list Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing John Robbins wrote: 96- Ford trucks I like, and the 96+ are super bloated and plasticy looking to me. The new new ones scream I'm compensating for something! To me the proportions of the new ones look off...that huge tall tailgate, mostly. I guess I still haven't gotten used to the high beltlines and small greenhouses that designers favor, these days. ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
The oil issue was related to overheating if I recall correctly. The engine was unique. It was an aluminum block with no sleeves. The aluminum was high in silicates (and this may be an incorrect description )The aluminum was etched back to leave only the silicates as the wear surface. It worked fairly well as long as the engine was not overheated. The heat caused problems that resulted in either bad oil consumption or outright seizure. Operating it here in Canada where the temperatures are not as hot for as long probably was better than trying to do so in the southern USA. The other problem was that there was really no way to resurface the block in the field. Got to give GM credit for going with an advanced design even if it ultimately bit them. Randy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Brodbeck Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:19 PM To: Mercedes mailing list Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing R A Bennell wrote: I had a 74 Vega brand new. The sheetmetal was recycled and rusted and it was noisy but it was a cheap fuel efficient car and served me well for the roughly 3 years that I drove it. I'm in Canada so the prices may be out of whack for you but I paid $2850 for it brand new and got $1450 on a trade for a 77 Mercury 3 years later. Depreciation of less than $500 per year on a new car is not bad. They had a *terrible* reputation in the U.S, and not just for rusting. They supposedly used so much oil that GM did a recall to link the ignition to the oil pressure sender, so the engine would shut off if you ran the car out of oil. My dad bought one new and had a really hard time getting rid of it -- car lots would only deal with him if he promised to drive the Vega back off the lot instead of trading it in. ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
speaking of GM products from the 80's thru early 90's, especially the front wheel drive cars, there is this dude I know locally that has a MANY FWD GM cars, buick etc. He takes the time to swap trannies on them, replace cracked heads, whatever. I was telling him just today that he is the only guy I know that would bother, anybody else would call the pick a part man to come get them. David Brodbeck wrote: Donald Snook wrote: It has become fashionable to bash GM lately. I recognize that there are a lot of problems at GM right now and certainly GM made some really lousy cars in the 70's and 80's. GM ain't what they used to be, and that's a GOOD thing. I drove my roommate's '99 Chevy Malibu recently and was surprised at how nicely it drove and how well put together it felt. It felt more like a Honda than a GM. It has the usual GM blandness, with styling that just screams rent me, but other than that it's a perfectly decent car. It's light years ahead of the '87 Buick Somerset he used to have. (Although, to be fair, the Somerset managed to wheeze and backfire its way to over 150,000 miles before someone rear-ended it on I-5 and put it out of its misery.) ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net -- Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK 89 560SEL, 87 300SDL, 85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 250 LWB, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D, 81 240D, 76 450SEL, 76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 69 250 Okie Benz Auto parts-email for used parts
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
Kaleb C. Striplin wrote: speaking of GM products from the 80's thru early 90's, especially the front wheel drive cars, there is this dude I know locally that has a MANY FWD GM cars, buick etc. He takes the time to swap trannies on them, replace cracked heads, whatever. I was telling him just today that he is the only guy I know that would bother, anybody else would call the pick a part man to come get them. He wasn't the only one who saw opportunity, though. For a long time those were the most stolen cars in the country. The reason? They were all basically the same car, and most of the parts interchanged, so there was a huge used parts market available to anyone who ran a chop shop. With all those cars on the road, who was going to suspect the origins of a cheap, used fender for an '86 Buick? Also, at the time, GM was making ignition switch and steering column assemblies that were easy to pop.
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
I think they alway made good trucks. The cars were a different story. R A Bennell wrote: On the other hand, GM made some darned good vehicles in the mid to late 60's. I still have a 68 Chevy pickup and it rides as good as any truck I have ever driven. Everytime I drive it I am amazed by how good it is given how old it is and how little it has had by way of upkeep in the past 20 years. It is a 292 and a powerglide too so not exactly the cream of the crop in GM parts. It would likely be even better with a small block V8 and a turbohydro 350. I had a 74 Vega brand new. The sheetmetal was recycled and rusted and it was noisy but it was a cheap fuel efficient car and served me well for the roughly 3 years that I drove it. I'm in Canada so the prices may be out of whack for you but I paid $2850 for it brand new and got $1450 on a trade for a 77 Mercury 3 years later. Depreciation of less than $500 per year on a new car is not bad. Randy note original message partly deleted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Snook Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [MBZ] OT GM bashing It has become fashionable to bash GM lately. I recognize that there are a lot of problems at GM right now and certainly GM made some really lousy cars in the 70's and 80's. GM also gave us some pretty fantastic ideas. GM was the first domestic company to build a front wheel drive car (1966 Olds Toronado), the first domestic company to try their hands at airbags, the first domestic company to build ABS cars and the first domestic company to attempt cylinder deactivation. I admit there have been some spectacular failures on the part of GM, for example: 1. The Chevy Vega Donald H. Snook ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net -- Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK 89 560SEL, 87 300SDL, 85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 250 LWB, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D, 81 240D, 76 450SEL, 76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 69 250 Okie Benz Auto parts-email for used parts
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
Everybody's a critic, and in keeping with my shallow and vapid ways, I don't have any actual experience with their products or engineering, but I've always hated GM purely on aesthetic grounds. I came of automotive age in the early '80's, and they made (and still do) hideously offensive looking vehicles, from the inside out. Each successive design cycle has continuously reinforced my subjective prejudice, sometimes causing me to laugh out loud and/or shoot liquids through my nostrils upon viewing their latest offerings. Pathetic and poorly executed derivatives have been par for the course. The other two Detroit rejects aren't much better, but at least they can be counted on to dredge up something to pique my interest from time to time...not the General though. Incidentally, MB's grotesque new R-class and CLS500 coupe look like they were swiped from the General's cutting room floor--a new low in Teutonic automotive design. Totally Bangled There, I feel better now. Casey Olympia, WA Biodiesel: I drive in a persistent vegetative state '87 300TD intercooler (211k) '84 300D (205k) Gashuffer: '89 Vanagon Wolfsburg Edition (186K)
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
GM, GM, GM. The cheap heap of the past, Dodge, is nowadays the hottest tamale. And Ford? hideously offensive looks like the whole line over the past 15 years. All look like Tauruses (Tauri ?), including the newest Jaguar. God forgive, what have they done. On 11/29/05, Zeitgeist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everybody's a critic, and in keeping with my shallow and vapid ways, I don't have any actual experience with their products or engineering, but I've always hated GM purely on aesthetic grounds. I came of automotive age in the early '80's, and they made (and still do) hideously offensive looking vehicles, from the inside out. Each successive design cycle has continuously reinforced my subjective prejudice, sometimes causing me to laugh out loud and/or shoot liquids through my nostrils upon viewing their latest offerings. Pathetic and poorly executed derivatives have been par for the course. The other two Detroit rejects aren't much better, but at least they can be counted on to dredge up something to pique my interest from time to time...not the General though. Incidentally, MB's grotesque new R-class and CLS500 coupe look like they were swiped from the General's cutting room floor--a new low in Teutonic automotive design. Totally Bangled There, I feel better now. Casey Olympia, WA Biodiesel: I drive in a persistent vegetative state '87 300TD intercooler (211k) '84 300D (205k) Gashuffer: '89 Vanagon Wolfsburg Edition (186K) ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net -- Hans Neureiter, Houston, TX '82 300SD, '95 E300D
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
I'd still like to have a 67 to 69 Chevy Impala in good condition. I'd say that would be similar to the pickup. Randy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kaleb C. Striplin Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:48 PM To: Mercedes mailing list Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing I think they alway made good trucks. The cars were a different story. R A Bennell wrote: On the other hand, GM made some darned good vehicles in the mid to late 60's. I still have a 68 Chevy pickup and it rides as good as any truck I have ever driven. Everytime I drive it I am amazed by how good it is given how old it is and how little it has had by way of upkeep in the past 20 years. It is a 292 and a powerglide too so not exactly the cream of the crop in GM parts. It would likely be even better with a small block V8 and a turbohydro 350.
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
Zeitgeist wrote: Everybody's a critic, and in keeping with my shallow and vapid ways, I don't have any actual experience with their products or engineering, but I've always hated GM purely on aesthetic grounds. I came of automotive age in the early '80's, and they made (and still do) Heh, I think the exact opposite... To me GM makes the only decent looking truck nowadays (no comment on their cars though goes either way depending on model). Dodge's looked really good when the new body style came out in 94-95? but the new ones just look super bloated. The 96- Ford trucks I like, and the 96+ are super bloated and plasticy looking to me. The new new ones scream I'm compensating for something! same for the new Dodge body style... The UK Ranger has the same styling as the most recent F150, but since its not super bloated looks very nice! Also really like the interiors of the 95+ GM trucks, very nice to look at, good quality for the most part, etc. Every other interior before that is ugly as hell though (what on earth were they thinking on some of those!!) Was anything in the 80's decent looking (other than MB of course ;)? John '79 300SD
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
On 11/29/05, Hans Neureiter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And Ford? hideously offensive looks like the whole line over the past 15 years. All look like Tauruses (Tauri ?), including the newest Jaguar. The X-type and S-type look like Tauri... but the XJ looks like a Crown Vic!!! Alex Chamberlain '87 300D Turbo
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
Donald Snook wrote: It has become fashionable to bash GM lately. I recognize that there are a lot of problems at GM right now and certainly GM made some really lousy cars in the 70's and 80's. GM ain't what they used to be, and that's a GOOD thing. I drove my roommate's '99 Chevy Malibu recently and was surprised at how nicely it drove and how well put together it felt. It felt more like a Honda than a GM. It has the usual GM blandness, with styling that just screams rent me, but other than that it's a perfectly decent car. It's light years ahead of the '87 Buick Somerset he used to have. (Although, to be fair, the Somerset managed to wheeze and backfire its way to over 150,000 miles before someone rear-ended it on I-5 and put it out of its misery.)
Re: [MBZ] OT GM bashing
R A Bennell wrote: I had a 74 Vega brand new. The sheetmetal was recycled and rusted and it was noisy but it was a cheap fuel efficient car and served me well for the roughly 3 years that I drove it. I'm in Canada so the prices may be out of whack for you but I paid $2850 for it brand new and got $1450 on a trade for a 77 Mercury 3 years later. Depreciation of less than $500 per year on a new car is not bad. They had a *terrible* reputation in the U.S, and not just for rusting. They supposedly used so much oil that GM did a recall to link the ignition to the oil pressure sender, so the engine would shut off if you ran the car out of oil. My dad bought one new and had a really hard time getting rid of it -- car lots would only deal with him if he promised to drive the Vega back off the lot instead of trading it in.
