We already knew that turn signal DRL's were a bad idea...
in [Drive]
|
Prev: How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?
Next: Vector LR 970 Radar Detector (?L01 CAL)
From: Nate Nagel on 6 Nov 2007 19:52 Brent P wrote: > In article <1194386264.671454.152600(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: > >>On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>>In article <1194381950.473664.139...(a)z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Daniel J. Stern wrote: >>> >>>>Well, GM have certainly done stupid things before. Let's see if this >>>>is one of them. Here are some major (bright) filament life ratings for >>>>various S8 wedge-base bulbs physically, electrically, and >>>>photometrically compatible with one another: >>> >>>>3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v >>> >>>>4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v >>> >>>>4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v >>> >>>>Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like >>>>the dumb choice? >>> >>>That data is not relevant to GM decision makers. How much does each bulb >>>cost from various suppliers and what does the decision maker get from >>>choosing a particular vendor? >>> >>>If a rep for a Chinese company that can supply 3157LL's for a tenth of >>>a penny less each than any other vendor on any of the bulbs plus throws >>>in some superbowl tickets, that's the "smart" choice given the priorities. >>> >>>The buyer has to replace the burned out bulbs so it is not something GM >>>has to worry about. (Plus, all the buyers who know better stopped buying >>>GM cars two decades ago) >> >>Maybe *new* GM cars. > > > Last 30 years give or take 5. I meant some of us still buy cars "gently pre-owned." My "new" car turns 20 next year. Should I bake it a cake? > >>I'd still like to find something similar to my dad's '67 Cutlass. >>Back in the day, GM knew how to bolt a car together. I still would >>rather have, say, a '67 Barracuda... but hey, guess what, both Olds >>and Plymouth are now history... sad. > > > That was 40 years ago ;) > I came by it honestly, it was at least 14 years old or so when it went to the Big Parking Lot in the Sky due to frame rust over the rear axle. > >>Does anyone subscribe to Hemming's Muscle Machines? This month's >>issue featured a '67 Dart GT... I immediately snapped back about 10 >>years. I was living in Pittsburgh and trying to find various pieces >>parts to keep my '67 Dart on the road, found a junkyard in McKee's >>Rocks that still kept all the "old stuff." Got to know the owner, >>turns out he was a CMU alum, so we'd chat for a bit every time I or >>one of my friends needed something. Found a '67 Dart GT in the 'yard, >>identical in every way to the car in this month's HMM except this one >>was dark metallic green. Gorgeous car, and didn't really show any >>reason why it should be in the junkyard. Only thing I could see wrong >>with it was the driver's door had a padlock hasp screwed into it >>(?!?!?!?!?!) I'd talked to the owner about possibly buying it off him >>as a resto project, and he tried to talk me out of it, saying that I'd >>be stuck with a salvage title if I went through with it. Well one day >>the decision was made for me when someone bought the transmission out >>of the car, and they removed it by flipping the car on its side with a >>forklift and torching out the rear mount. > > > Salvage titles can be cleared by going to a state that doesn't keep track > of such things. As much as you've moved it would have had a regular title by > now ;) > Now you tell me :( Actually I knew that, but it would have been a better long-term investment than the 914 that is still sitting in my parents' barn. I suppose if I'd held onto it but never registered it that I could probably have gotten a clear title from Broadway by now, not that I would ever suggest that anyone do something slightly dishonest. (for the record, I've used Broadway exactly twice, once for a '62 Stude that was never registered, ever - seriously - and once for my '55, which had been floating around unregistered for a decade or more. So my conscience is clear.) > I've seen a fair number of cars in junkyards that really didn't seem like > they belonged there.... then watch them get cut up, stripped, and > generally abused. True, but it's rare that you see something truly collectible in that state. And when you do, it's really, really sad. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Brent P on 6 Nov 2007 21:14 In article <fgr29707iu(a)news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: > I meant some of us still buy cars "gently pre-owned." My "new" car > turns 20 next year. Should I bake it a cake? My 'new' car turns 11 in a month and half. >> I've seen a fair number of cars in junkyards that really didn't seem like >> they belonged there.... then watch them get cut up, stripped, and >> generally abused. > True, but it's rare that you see something truly collectible in that > state. And when you do, it's really, really sad. Probably the most collectable car I've seen like that was one of these: http://www.myclassics.homestead.com/70SkylarkConvHome.jpg http://www.buickbombsight.org/72akins.jpg Early 70s skylark convertible... looked like it was a fairly solid and clean car. By the time I saw it, it had been stripped to the bone. A red one, factory red (I know for sure because there was no interior left at all, just nice red painted sheet metal), at that.
From: Daniel J. Stern on 8 Nov 2007 17:50 On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > 3157LL (3157K): 2k hr @ 12.8v, 1k hr @ 13.5v, 624 hr @ 14.0v > > > 4157K (4157LL): 4k hr @ 12.8v, 2k hr @ 13.5v, 1.2k hr @ 14.0v > > > 4114K (4114LL): 12.8k hr @ 12.8v, 6.4k hr @ 13.5v, 4k hr @ 14.0v > > > Which looks like the smart choice for DRL service? Which looks like > > the dumb choice? > That data is not relevant to GM decision makers. > The buyer has to replace the burned out bulbs so it is not something GM > has to worry about. I'd agree with you if GM weren't dumb enough to cover bulbs under the vehicle warranty, but they are exactly that dumb. I called my local Chev dealer's service department today, claimed to have a 2006 Cobalt with a burned-out DRL/turn signal bulb, and asked if it was covered under warranty. Response was "Yup, as long as you're within the 3 years or 60,000 kilometres, bulbs are covered." DS
From: Arif Khokar on 9 Nov 2007 19:32
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > I'd agree with you if GM weren't dumb enough to cover bulbs under the > vehicle warranty, but they are exactly that dumb. I called my local > Chev dealer's service department today, claimed to have a 2006 Cobalt > with a burned-out DRL/turn signal bulb, and asked if it was covered > under warranty. Response was "Yup, as long as you're within the 3 > years or 60,000 kilometres, bulbs are covered." I guess it then depends on how many times bulb failure would occur within the three year period and, out of those times, how long the owner waits before replacing the bulb. |