Re: Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

In article
<8abfb4e1-e158-476f-b3db-97ea21fd618e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 3:01 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article
<289987d3-54d5-4349-a4b4-5716a671f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
>> > On Jan 10, 3:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > So you're saying ****sche deliberately makes unreliable vehicles?
>> > Gee!   Of course, that's not what they say.
>>
>> Keep displaying your complete ignorance of engineering Lloyd.
>>
>> How long does a race car's engine last?
> 
> This is as relevant to the discussion at hand as talking about the
> computers in the Space Shuttle when comparing Dell and Mac
> reliability.

Again you demonstrate you have no clue what so ever about engineering. 
You don't even grasp the conceptual level. 
 
>>Why is it reliable for only a
>> such short period of time? How was the design balanced between
>> performance and long term reliability?  Have you figured it out yet?
>