On Oct 5, 10:55 am, "E. Meyer" <epmeye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/09 4:28 PM, in article
> a0ac8289-a19c-4028-a402-931173920...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Otis"
>
>
>
> <rev_otis_mcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 12:31 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...@GrumpyvilleNOT.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Otis wrote:
>
> >>> Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more.
> >>> That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars.
>
> >> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year warranties.
>
> > And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common
> > laptop
> > today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much
> > more.
>
> > Technology advancement does change things a bit.
>
> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
> orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.

Then again, both of you guys didn't seem to notice the "if not much
much more"
part.

 

On Oct 1, 7:55 pm, dsi1 <d...@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote:
> >> hls wrote:
>
> >>> "dsi1" <d...@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message
> >>>>> Fiat is a bit of a joke, even in Europe. I lived there for many
> >>>>> many years.
>
> >>>> I'm guessing it's partially because they're such a big force in
> >>>> Europe, the same as GM is in the states.
>
> >>> You would be very wrong... In Europe, many people buy for quality, or
> >>> at least perceived quality. Fiat and Lancia suck in this perception
> >>> outside of Italia. People outside Italy buy Fiat largely on price.
>
> >> I'm not sure why you would say I was wrong. I made no comment about
> >> the quality of Fiat cars nor did I say anything about what Europeans
> >> are looking for when they buy a car.
>
> >> Obviously, most people would rather have a Mercedes or a Lexus but the
> >> reality is that most people settle for a Chevy over here and a Fiat(or
> >> VW) in Europe.
>
> > IME VW is a LARGE cut above Chevy... at least the A4 GTI I had felt
> > like a little luxury car inside, and I had no real problems with it save
> > for the #@$%@#$ window issues. My mom now loves it too :/ (gotta
> > figure out how to get her to buy a new car so I can have it back...)
>
> > nate
>
> I loved the VWs I've had. They did have some problems with the valve
> stem seals and the fuse boxes on the early FWD cars. Killer rust
> problems. As it goes, any car has it's weak points, well, Chevys and VWs
> and Fiats, anyway. :-)

I've always thought the VW's were overpriced. And there was that
feeling--in
my family anyway--that a VW wasn't a "real car." I know there were
huge
numbers of VW owners in recent years who were more than a little
miffed
about their owners manuals saying their timing belts wouldn't need
changing
till 100k miles, with many actually failing at around 85k, doing
extensive
engine damage, and getting blown off by VW.

 

Otis wrote:

> Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more.
> That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars.

That's about right. I remember the decision my step-father made was
between a Vega and a Beetle, and both had a street price of around
$1800, so an MSRP of around $2K is about right.

 

On 10/5/09 11:50 AM, in article
b4b20003-74d6-4a9f-ace8-10ab782ccda1...oglegroups.com, "Otis"
<rev_otis_mcnatt@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 10:55 am, "E. Meyer" <epmeye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/4/09 4:28 PM, in article
>> a0ac8289-a19c-4028-a402-931173920...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Otis"
>>
>>
>>
>> <rev_otis_mcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 12:31 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...@GrumpyvilleNOT.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Otis wrote:
>>
>>>>> Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more.
>>>>> That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars.
>>
>>>> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year
>>>> warranties.
>>
>>> And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common
>>> laptop
>>> today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much
>>> more.
>>
>>> Technology advancement does change things a bit.
>>
>> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
>> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
>> orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.
>
> Then again, both of you guys didn't seem to notice the "if not much
> much more"
> part.
>

All things considered, since the development and pricing of cars doesn't
appear to follow Moore's law, comparing the pricing of cars to computers is
probably not the right way to go about it. Maybe cars & refrigerators would
work better?

 

Otis <rev_otis_mcnatt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 12:31=A0pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...@GrumpyvilleNOT.com>
>wrote:
>> Otis wrote:
>
>> > Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more.
>> > That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars.
>>
>> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year warranti=
>es.
>
>And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common
>laptop
>today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much
>more.
>
>Technology advancement does change things a bit.

The advancement in auto technology from 1900 to 1936 was about as great
as the advancement in computer technology from 1973 to 2009. The increase
in power and decrease in cost was about proportional.

Then automotive technology more or less began to even out, and there have
been incremental improvements since then, but nothing quite so dramatic.
Perhaps the same will happen for computers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
>memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
>orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.

Yeah, but in 1973 that computer served an entire department and everyone
was able to use it to get work done, whereas if you attempt to get something
done with your cellphone, you'll find it's not so effective....
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

Otis wrote:
> On Oct 1, 7:55 pm, dsi1 <d...@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>> hls wrote:
>>>>> "dsi1" <d...@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Fiat is a bit of a joke, even in Europe. I lived there for many
>>>>>>> many years.
>>>>>> I'm guessing it's partially because they're such a big force in
>>>>>> Europe, the same as GM is in the states.
>>>>> You would be very wrong... In Europe, many people buy for quality, or
>>>>> at least perceived quality. Fiat and Lancia suck in this perception
>>>>> outside of Italia. People outside Italy buy Fiat largely on price.
>>>> I'm not sure why you would say I was wrong. I made no comment about
>>>> the quality of Fiat cars nor did I say anything about what Europeans
>>>> are looking for when they buy a car.
>>>> Obviously, most people would rather have a Mercedes or a Lexus but the
>>>> reality is that most people settle for a Chevy over here and a Fiat(or
>>>> VW) in Europe.
>>> IME VW is a LARGE cut above Chevy... at least the A4 GTI I had felt
>>> like a little luxury car inside, and I had no real problems with it save
>>> for the #@$%@#$ window issues. My mom now loves it too :/ (gotta
>>> figure out how to get her to buy a new car so I can have it back...)
>>> nate
>> I loved the VWs I've had. They did have some problems with the valve
>> stem seals and the fuse boxes on the early FWD cars. Killer rust
>> problems. As it goes, any car has it's weak points, well, Chevys and VWs
>> and Fiats, anyway. :-)
>
> I've always thought the VW's were overpriced. And there was that
> feeling--in
> my family anyway--that a VW wasn't a "real car." I know there were
> huge
> numbers of VW owners in recent years who were more than a little
> miffed
> about their owners manuals saying their timing belts wouldn't need
> changing
> till 100k miles, with many actually failing at around 85k, doing
> extensive
> engine damage, and getting blown off by VW.

Many Americans used to feel that foreign cars weren't real cars - I
suppose there was some truth to that if the cars you're used to had an
engine displacement of 350 cubic in or more vs. 98 cubic in or less.

 

On Sep 30, 3:25 pm, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
> "dsi1" <d...@spamnet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jtNwm.221416$cf6.208145@newsfe16.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > hls wrote:
>
> >> "Otis" <rev_otis_mcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1f20ce7d-cd39-4208-920c-08032814acbb@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
> >>> Over the years, the inevitable subject of worst cars ever comes up,
> >>> and the Vega
> >>> is always at or near the top of the list. I've seen it a hundred
> >>> times. I feel I should
> >>> put in a good word for the little car.
>
> >> That is, I believe, the car with the silicon/aluminum alloy engine...That
> >> thing
> >> went out for most people very quickly.
>
> >> Now, believe it or not, I have seen Yugos still on the road. Even the
> >> worst
> >> automaker allows a good one to slip out occasionally.
>
> > Yugo = Fiat 128
>
> Maybe the equality is not quite right, but similar.
> Fiat also put Russia into the car business, IIRC.
>
> We have owned three Fiats...a 131 Mirafiore, a 128, and another I cant
> remember. The engines were okay, but the bodies tended to rust out
> very badly on some of them.

My uncle had one that was the same way. Engine could keep going, but
the floor plates went into Fred Flintstone mode. You had to keep your
feet on the pedals at all time, because the floor couldn't be trusted.
He kept it on his property a little while (he was in the country)
after it got to this point but then he sold it. He was a tinkerer and
I think it gave him some hobby time. His other cars then were a VW
Rabbit and an early 1980s Mercedes.

 

On 10/5/09 1:50 PM, in article hadf5q$slm$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
>> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
>> orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.
>
> Yeah, but in 1973 that computer served an entire department and everyone
> was able to use it to get work done, whereas if you attempt to get something
> done with your cellphone, you'll find it's not so effective....
> --scott
>
Not the computer I'm talking about. Cards in, cards or paper out. One job
at a time. I'll grant you I/O with the cell phone might be a bit tedious
for batch processing, but my ipod touch (which runs Unix internally & cost
$399) would have absolutely no problem running rings around that dinosaur.

 

E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/5/09 1:50 PM, in article hadf5q$slm$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
><kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
>>> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
>>> orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.
>>
>> Yeah, but in 1973 that computer served an entire department and everyone
>> was able to use it to get work done, whereas if you attempt to get something
>> done with your cellphone, you'll find it's not so effective....
>> --scott
>>
>Not the computer I'm talking about. Cards in, cards or paper out. One job
>at a time. I'll grant you I/O with the cell phone might be a bit tedious
>for batch processing, but my ipod touch (which runs Unix internally & cost
>$399) would have absolutely no problem running rings around that dinosaur.

Yup... but I bet with that batch machine they were running three shifts of
research work, student assignments, and maybe even administrative data
(if it was anything like the 360/50 we had). All on the same machine.
And everybody was happy, and everybody was amazed at how powerful it was.
--scott

>


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

On Sep 30, 12:46 pm, Otis <rev_otis_mcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Over the years, the inevitable subject of worst cars ever comes up,
> and the Vega is always at or near the top of the list....
> My sister got a new Vega in early 1973 (a stripped-down one at that,
> about as basic as was available). I then inherited it in late '74 and
> drove it merrily for another full year. That little car was never
> ONE ounce of trouble. It cruised at 75 mph like
> a charm, never burped or coughed, and I actually don't know that the
> oil was ever changed!!!!


I drove a 1974 Vega GT (2 dr hatchback coupe) for serveral years.
My mother purchased it new and after 7 years gave it to me -
I drove and cared for it for the next 5 years.

I only did minor updates to the car. I replaced the stock
AM radio to a AM/FM/stereo cassette radio and add
stereo rear speakers.

Being a poor student at the time I tried to do most
of the maintance myself. I changed the oil, oil filter,
air filter, spark plugs, spark plug wires, points and
condensor, rotate the tires, replace tail lights, replace
the headlights, cleaned the carborator, etc. During
the lifetime of the car, beyond replacing the tires
and battery, I also had to replace the had the shock
absorbers, exhast systems ,the alternator,
the radiator and its hoses. Near the end of its
life I was going to the car junkyard to find
replacement parts to fix it (broken tail lamp
lense). I remember a local auto mechanic,
refusing to repair it - saying that I should get a
replacement car and to put the Vega out of
its misery.


The aluminum cylinder heads and iron/steel engine block
expanded at different rates so it had a tendency to burn oil.
Unlike the Toyota Corolla or the Honda Civic, the Chevy Vega
was very heavy and it had weak engine. The sluggish automatic
further handicapped acceleration when using the stock 4 cylinder.
The car intially got about 24 mpg but as it grew older it got about
21 mpg.(combined highway and city driving). The interior
did not age well. Near the end of the car's life, The back of
the driver's seat became warped.


The Chevy Vega was the first car that GM used an all automated
robotic assembly line; unfortunately, the robotic spot welding
was rough and as the car got older and the paint job started to
fail one could see where Chevy had used body puddy to cover
up flawed welding. The Vega started to rust from the inside
out behind the front wheel wells fenders and along the flawed
welding points about the 7th year despite all the efforts to keep
it clean and dry.

 

On 10/5/09 6:31 PM, in article hadvl2$q3p$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/09 1:50 PM, in article hadf5q$slm$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
>> <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> E. Meyer <epmeyer50@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte
>>>> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is
>>>> orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but in 1973 that computer served an entire department and everyone
>>> was able to use it to get work done, whereas if you attempt to get something
>>> done with your cellphone, you'll find it's not so effective....
>>> --scott
>>>
>> Not the computer I'm talking about. Cards in, cards or paper out. One job
>> at a time. I'll grant you I/O with the cell phone might be a bit tedious
>> for batch processing, but my ipod touch (which runs Unix internally & cost
>> $399) would have absolutely no problem running rings around that dinosaur.
>
> Yup... but I bet with that batch machine they were running three shifts of
> research work, student assignments, and maybe even administrative data
> (if it was anything like the 360/50 we had). All on the same machine.
> And everybody was happy, and everybody was amazed at how powerful it was.
> --scott
>
>>

Nope. We had one of those as well (actually the RCA Spectra 70 equivalent
of a 360/50) that was used pretty much as you describe & cost an order of
magnitude more.

This was a 360/20-25 & was used solely as a hands-on machine for the CS
majors. No production work on it at all. One job at a time, only open
during normal working hours & they had to punch their own cards and feed it
themselves. Essentially a really big, really slow PC. It took
approximately 20 minutes to compile a 50 line PL/1 program.

A Chevy Vega (just to pretend any of this has anything to do with the topic)
was a glimpse of the future comparatively.

 

On Oct 6, 3:42 am, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 12:46 pm, Otis <rev_otis_mcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Over the years, the inevitable subject of worst cars ever comes up,
> > and the Vega is always at or near the top of the list....
> > My sister got a new Vega in early 1973 (a stripped-down one at that,
> > about as basic as was available). I then inherited it in late '74 and
> > drove it merrily for another full year. That little car was never
> > ONE ounce of trouble. It cruised at 75 mph like
> > a charm, never burped or coughed, and I actually don't know that the
> > oil was ever changed!!!!
>
> I drove a 1974 Vega GT (2 dr hatchback coupe) for serveral years.
> My mother purchased it new and after 7 years gave it to me -
> I drove and cared for it for the next 5 years.
>
> I only did minor updates to the car. I replaced the stock
> AM radio to a AM/FM/stereo cassette radio and add
> stereo rear speakers.
>
> Being a poor student at the time I tried to do most
> of the maintance myself. I changed the oil, oil filter,
> air filter, spark plugs, spark plug wires, points and
> condensor, rotate the tires, replace tail lights, replace
> the headlights, cleaned the carborator, etc. During
> the lifetime of the car, beyond replacing the tires
> and battery, I also had to replace the had the shock
> absorbers, exhast systems ,the alternator,
> the radiator and its hoses. Near the end of its
> life I was going to the car junkyard to find
> replacement parts to fix it (broken tail lamp
> lense). I remember a local auto mechanic,
> refusing to repair it - saying that I should get a
> replacement car and to put the Vega out of
> its misery.

But sounds like you got your money's worth! I've got a
'90 Mazda--no working heater or AC and it was "totaled"
3½ years ago when a woman ran a stop sign and slammed
into its rear door....repair cost exceeded market value, hence
totaled. It still drives great, and believe it or not, I still wash
and WAX it, just wax over that nice body damage! The car
looks about two years old under the hood. The machine
has character.

 

Neo wrote:
>
> I drove a 1974 Vega GT (2 dr hatchback coupe) for serveral years.
> My mother purchased it new and after 7 years gave it to me -
> I drove and cared for it for the next 5 years.
>
> I only did minor updates to the car. I replaced the stock
> AM radio to a AM/FM/stereo cassette radio and add
> stereo rear speakers.
>
> Being a poor student at the time I tried to do most
> of the maintance myself. I changed the oil, oil filter,
> air filter, spark plugs, spark plug wires, points and
> condensor, rotate the tires, replace tail lights, replace
> the headlights, cleaned the carborator, etc. During
> the lifetime of the car, beyond replacing the tires
> and battery, I also had to replace the had the shock
> absorbers, exhast systems ,the alternator,
> the radiator and its hoses. Near the end of its
> life I was going to the car junkyard to find
> replacement parts to fix it (broken tail lamp
> lense). I remember a local auto mechanic,
> refusing to repair it - saying that I should get a
> replacement car and to put the Vega out of
> its misery.
>
>
> The aluminum cylinder heads and iron/steel engine block
> expanded at different rates so it had a tendency to burn oil.
> Unlike the Toyota Corolla or the Honda Civic, the Chevy Vega
> was very heavy and it had weak engine. The sluggish automatic
> further handicapped acceleration when using the stock 4 cylinder.
> The car intially got about 24 mpg but as it grew older it got about
> 21 mpg.(combined highway and city driving). The interior
> did not age well. Near the end of the car's life, The back of
> the driver's seat became warped.

The Vega had an iron cylinder head and an aluminum block which was the
reverse of the small cars of the time. That was considered cutting edge
technology at the time and they probably thought that most cars after
the Vega would be running on sleeveless, aluminum block engines. That
never happened but had the Vega come with a conventional engine, we
wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Back in the 70s I had a "Sexy European" Ford Capri - similar to a Vega
GT with a cast iron engine block. It was a gasss to drive but not many
people will remember that car or it's engine.


>
>
> The Chevy Vega was the first car that GM used an all automated
> robotic assembly line; unfortunately, the robotic spot welding
> was rough and as the car got older and the paint job started to
> fail one could see where Chevy had used body puddy to cover
> up flawed welding. The Vega started to rust from the inside
> out behind the front wheel wells fenders and along the flawed
> welding points about the 7th year despite all the efforts to keep
> it clean and dry.

 

dsi1 <dsi1@spamnet.com> wrote in news:toLym.29048$lR3.26186
@newsfe25.iad:

> Neo wrote:
>>
>> I drove a 1974 Vega GT (2 dr hatchback coupe) for serveral years.
>> My mother purchased it new and after 7 years gave it to me -
>> I drove and cared for it for the next 5 years.
>>
>> I only did minor updates to the car. I replaced the stock
>> AM radio to a AM/FM/stereo cassette radio and add
>> stereo rear speakers.
>>
>> Being a poor student at the time I tried to do most
>> of the maintance myself. I changed the oil, oil filter,
>> air filter, spark plugs, spark plug wires, points and
>> condensor, rotate the tires, replace tail lights, replace
>> the headlights, cleaned the carborator, etc. During
>> the lifetime of the car, beyond replacing the tires
>> and battery, I also had to replace the had the shock
>> absorbers, exhast systems ,the alternator,
>> the radiator and its hoses. Near the end of its
>> life I was going to the car junkyard to find
>> replacement parts to fix it (broken tail lamp
>> lense). I remember a local auto mechanic,
>> refusing to repair it - saying that I should get a
>> replacement car and to put the Vega out of
>> its misery.
>>
>>
>> The aluminum cylinder heads and iron/steel engine block
>> expanded at different rates so it had a tendency to burn oil.
>> Unlike the Toyota Corolla or the Honda Civic, the Chevy Vega
>> was very heavy and it had weak engine. The sluggish automatic
>> further handicapped acceleration when using the stock 4 cylinder.
>> The car intially got about 24 mpg but as it grew older it got about
>> 21 mpg.(combined highway and city driving). The interior
>> did not age well. Near the end of the car's life, The back of
>> the driver's seat became warped.
>
> The Vega had an iron cylinder head and an aluminum block which was the
> reverse of the small cars of the time. That was considered cutting
edge
> technology at the time and they probably thought that most cars after
> the Vega would be running on sleeveless, aluminum block engines. That
> never happened but had the Vega come with a conventional engine, we
> wouldn't be having this conversation today.
>
> Back in the 70s I had a "Sexy European" Ford Capri - similar to a Vega
> GT with a cast iron engine block. It was a gasss to drive but not many
> people will remember that car or it's engine.


That capri was a german import for mercury and used a 2000 cc german
eng. that is the same one used in the early pintos too. (untill mid 73
when the 2300 was interduced) unless you had the later 73 up capri that
may have had the 2300 or the V6 option. I had a 72 that I put the V6
rear end in and was getting 37 MPG at 70 mph. The capri was light years
ahead of the cheep vega and pinto. it was a well crafted small car, not
a cheap entry level throwaway like the vega and pinto. KB


>
>>
>>
>> The Chevy Vega was the first car that GM used an all automated
>> robotic assembly line; unfortunately, the robotic spot welding
>> was rough and as the car got older and the paint job started to
>> fail one could see where Chevy had used body puddy to cover
>> up flawed welding. The Vega started to rust from the inside
>> out behind the front wheel wells fenders and along the flawed
>> welding points about the 7th year despite all the efforts to keep
>> it clean and dry.
>



--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others