Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:
Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.
Your last sentence is preposterous. I drove cars that far
back, and today's versions are head and shoulders better,
and that includes reliability. Statistics put out by
Consumer's Union over the last few decades support this
point, by the way. Cars are more reliable than ever, not to
mention cleaner burning and more fuel efficient.
While I don't really agree with calcerise here, I don't see any
contradiction between your statement and his. Clearly, cars are much
more reliable today than they were in the 60s and 70s. But engine and
transmission castings today are much lighter and thinner than they were
back then, which could lead to them being less "rugged" (though it
certainly helps with that fuel efficiency that you mention). The
important point is that they are rugged enough to last through a cars
expected lifetime, and that other parts of the car have been improved to
have significantly better reliability. So while cars broke often in the
60s and 70s, it wasn't generally the engine or transmission castings
that caused the failure. And it still isn't today.
I can't comment on the "rebuildable" part. I don't think engine
castings get "rebuilt" much these days. Even in the 60s and 70s, cars
that needed that level of repair tended to get junked.
I guess the point is that while his statement may be true, it doesn't
really support his argument.