In article
<cdd803c6-dd39-434e-a064-45192ec3cd32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2:54 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 11:52 am, Lloyd <lpar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 2:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent P)
wrote:
>>
>> > > In article
<4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 8, 3:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent P)
wrote:
>> > > >> In article
<487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
>> > > >> > On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent
P)
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> In article <9s2dnSYCC7PC2R_anZ2dnUVZ_v6rn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Steve wrote:
>> > > >> >> > Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> >>>Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good
vehicle from their
>> > > >> >> >>>own backside.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Oh give it a rest. When the leading auto enthusiast
magazine and the
>> > > >> >> >> leading consumer magazine both pan Chrysler products,
consider they're
>> > > >> >> >> right and you are blind.
>>
>> > > >> >> > When my direct experience on repeated occasions validates
my opinion, I
>> > > >> >> > don't believe I'm blind.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Yada, yada, yada. Grow up. Your blind, chauvanistic
cheerleading for
>> > > >> >> >> Chrysler is tiring and childish.
>>
>> > > >> >> > And your quasi-religious faith in what professional WRITERS
(not
>> > > >> >> > scientists or engineers) repeatedly churn out is abhorrent
to me. Even
>> > > >> >> > they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied
customers to
>> > > >> >> > point out that Toyota screws up just as much as anyone
else, but they do
>> > > >> >> > so grudgingly.
>>
>> > > >> >> This brings back usenet memories.... Parker still wor****ps
Consumer
>> > > >> >> re****ts and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same
time on other
>> > > >> >> subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals.
Of course
>> > > >> >> he won't pick up an engineering journal or even read the
short verisons
>> > > >> >> in SAE's magazine.
>>
>> > > >> > I must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability, fun
to
>> > > >> > drive, etc. If you can tell me which issue that's in...
>>
>> > > >> You wouldn't even accept engineering journals on ABS and
stability system
>> > > >> design prefering consumer re****ts and car and driver.
>>
>> > > >> But hey, you could use a similiar argument you just made for
getting
>> > > >> 'science' from the NYTimes, popular science, and national
review. The
>> > > >> scientific journals lacking the consumer, everyman, type things.
But you
>> > > >> bash people for that, you deserve it back when you get your
ideas of ABS
>> > > >> system design from consumer re****ts.
>>
>> > > > No, because I'm not talking about how to engineer a car, but
whether
>> > > > it's reliable, whether it handles well, etc. Those you get from
the
>> > > > people testing them and the owners re****ting on them.
>>
>> > > 1) you neglect the term 'brings back memories'
>> > > 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from?
>>
>> > > > Science you get from scientists.
>>
>> > > But you won't get your engineering from engineers.
>>
>> > I'm not asking for engineering. I'm asking for quality, for
>> > reliability, for fun to drive. Tell me which of these are in the
>> > realm of engineers.
>>
>> Uhhh, Lloyd? Without engineers, you get precisely none of those
>> things. Proper mechanical design and specification make reliability
>> happen. That almost describes engineering.
>>
>> E.P.
>
> Wrong. If so, BMW and Mercedes and ****sche would have the most
> reliable vehicles. They don't. There's a LOT more to building a
> reliable product.
Engineering is a BALANCE of many different things. Different
manufacturers weight the factors differently. Some manufacturers weight
different products differently. The balance point for a Ford GT is
universe away from the balance point for a Taurus. The balance point for
a ****sche 911 is in a different universe than a Chrysler minivan.
Your childish TV commerical view of engineering is far worse than the
view of science had by the people you chastise.
|
