FB

Frank Boettcher

20/08/2008 7:23 AM

New Unisaw - The flag is back


My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.

"How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
(we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".

I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
Pentair, didn't have a clue.

Wish I could be there to see it. I passed on IWF this year, it
conflicting with a fishing/scalloping trip planned some time ago and
it looks like TS Fay is going to wipe out that alternative.

Frank


This topic has 109 replies

BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 5:26 PM

David G. Nagel wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have
>>> always gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains.
>>> Thinner air does not require as high of octane from the fuel to
>>> prevent valve clatter and if you are burning regular elevation fuel
>>> 87 or better your mileage could increase also. Typically gas octane
>>> in high elevation regions has an 85 or lower rating.
>>
>> Thinner air requires a leaner mixture, but overall horsepower is reduced.
>>
>> This is demonstrated to me every time I fly. <G>
> I can't speak to milage in this situation but I was always taught that
> increasing Octane reduced knock caused by preignition of low octane gas.
> This has nothing to do with valve chatter.
>
> Dave

Please quote carefully.

Leon said that, not me.

I think you're absolutely right about the valves, and can't figure out
why octane would have anything to do with valve noise.

On the other hand, in ground school I learned that detonation is caused
by too low of an octane, with the compression burning the fuel
explosively before the plug fires. Pre-ignition is caused by cylinder
hot spots and burning carbon deposits. The carbon deposits are usually
artifacts from too rich of a mixture resulting in too low cylinder head
temperatures.

nn

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:47 PM

On Aug 22, 10:47 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

SNIP of good stuff

Leon, thanks for the insight. I appreciate an intelligent look from a
guy with your personal experience. You make a lot of good points, and
I got a good chuckle out of the fact that your take was that the fact
was the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
were so needed.

How true is that?

My last two trucks have been Fords, simply because they "had the deal"
and were more comfortable to me than the GM products. This is my 14th
truck, and personally I really don't care what brand I drive as long
as it wears well and is reliable. Overall I have been lucky with my
last 3 Fords, but the best truck I ever owned was a '75 GMC "Heavy
Half" with a three on the tree and a Olds made 350 engine in it.

I have never owned a foreign made truck, but like a lot of my
compatriots, we have had enough of shoddy domestic products. I was
leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
truck, but their repair record scared me off.

I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
wagon.

My amigo paid his $35K for it, but he only uses it for light work.
Here's hint of the difference: my truck is PACKED with tools and odds
and end of repair crap. In his truck tool box, he still has room for
his small bag of golf clubs.

I will personally feel better about the Toyotas as work trucks when I
see them with head racks for ladders, bed liners, tool boxes and bed
side tool boxes, maybe pulling around a small skid steer loader, and/
or any of the other job specific hardware on the trucks that let you
know their job is work.

Like you, I will pay more if I think I am getting more. But the jury
is still out. And as before, you can bet I will be looking somewhere
else than the big three next time I buy.

Thanks again for the insight.

Robert




TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 11:58 AM

Tom G wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
>>> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
>>> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>>>
>>> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
>>> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
>>> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
>>> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
>>> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
>>> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>>>
>>> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
>>> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
>>> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
>>> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
>>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
>>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>>
>>> Wish I could be there to see it. I passed on IWF this year, it
>>> conflicting with a fishing/scalloping trip planned some time ago and
>>> it looks like TS Fay is going to wipe out that alternative.
>>>
>>> Frank
>> Sounds like a Harley come back story revisited. Let's hope that they are
>> as successful.
>>
> Interesting story on NBC news last night. Seems that Chinese manufacturing
> is in trouble. They estimate that 30 percent of the factories in one
> province will shutter their doors in the next year. As one Chinese
> interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore". Labor laws in China
> have doubled the minimum wage in the last year or so. Many companies are
> moving their manufacturing sites to Vietnam and Indonesia as a result.
>
> Tom G.
>
>

Wow, what a shock, free markets actually work??? The anti-globalist,
anti-trade sentiment one frequently hears (especially here) is
foolish. The Chinese/Indian/Sri Lankan/Taiwanese... "cheap" labor
advantage was/is temporary. As these nations continue to participate
in global markets and thereby become more wealthy, their average
salaries will - in currency adjusted terms - start to converge to be
around the same as everyone else's. Sooner or later, people working in
market economies want the same things the wealthy Westerners do - a
nice car, a house, air conditioning, an education, etc. Wage inflation
has already hit Indian IT outsourcing and it is inevitable in China's
manufacturing sector. The only thing that can stop it is violent
suppression by their government (possible) or an invasion by a foreign
power (unlikely).

Trade not only benefits these people, it also makes nations more
interdependent and thus less likely to go to war or otherwise behave
in naughty and violent ways. Yet somehow, it is Westerners - the very
biggest beneficiaries of trade - that lead the whining chorus in
opposition to globalism and markets. Astonishing (and depressing).

One common example of this whining is the insistence that you only
"Buy American" regardless of how good a value an offshore product
might be. I prefer to buy *quality and value*. Sometimes that's an
American product, but not always. Sometimes even the better American
product has so much protectionist goo around it that buying it may be
a mistake. For instance, GM and the execrable UAW are discovering just
how bad the pain can be when you cease participating in fair markets
and hide behind union restraint-of-trade. This makes me disinclined
to buy another Chevy truck when I wonder if the company can even
survive as its unions bleed it to death. As always, Reality trumps
collectivist fantasy...

If you want more peace, slower population growth, better environmental
conditions, better work conditions, fewer poor people, and more good
things for more people, become a market Capitalist. If you hate your
fellow man, subscribe to limited trade, central government control,
tariffs, and "managed" economies.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

LM

"Lee Michaels"

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 8:40 PM


"J. Clarke" wrote
>
> Flashing on conversation in the dentist's office the other day. The
> lovely Doc Irina and her assistant were laughing about the guy who had
> come in to fix their computer, who had his glasses held together with
> masking tape. They're both Russian--I had to explain the concept of
> "nerd" to them.
>
The lovely Doc Irina, eh?

What did you tell her who you were?


MD

Morris Dovey

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 5:24 PM

jo4hn wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the
>> specific purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we
>> NERDS? ;~)
>
> Well, let's check. Whose ad is on your pocket protector?
>
> geeksville,
> jo4hn
>
> p.s. member is good standing of the LAPOOGAN
> (loyal and protective order of geeks and nerds)

Hmm. I have a /leather/ pocket protector loaded up with a five-piece
Rotring set - it matches the leather case for my nice yellow log-log
Pickett N600-ES. I suppose now I hafta go find some masking tape to put
on my s/s glasses frames. ;-)

What? I don't see any nerds...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 5:32 PM


"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the
>> specific purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS?
>> ;~)
>>
>
> Well, let's check. Whose ad is on your pocket protector?



Piggley Wiggley! Wanna make something of it???? LOL

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 10:57 AM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:58:31 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
>> I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
>> find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
>> the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
>> and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
>> like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
>> prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
>> and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
>> Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
>> is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
>> again.
>
>
>You will probably be happy with that vehicle. My neighbor bouught
>essentially the same thing 2 years ago but the GMC version. I have no
>problems with these vehicles as far as comfort are concerned, they have full
>and comfortabhle back seats unlike the truck extend cabs and their doors
>fasten securely unlike the truck extended cabs the Gm is currently making.
>
>
>
>
>> What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
>> of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
>> the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
>> truck frames. Go figure ...
>
>I noticed the same thing, I was considering down sizing until I noticed that
>the gas mileage was not that great of savings. Very often the smaller
>vehicles are simply under powered by compairison to the larger vehicles with
>the stronger engines. Small engines do use less fuel unless they have to
>strain more to perform like you want. I had an 87 Isuzu Trooper with a 140
>hp 4 cyl engine that got 14 in town, 20 on the highway. I replaced it with
>a 97 Chevy extended cab with a 230 hp 5.0 liter engine, it got 13-14 in
>town and 20 on the highway. My 07 Tundra 4 door with 381 hp 5.7 gets 15+ in
>town and 20 on the highway. Although each new vehicle got larger and had
>more considerably more hp gas mileage pretty much stayed the same and or
>improved.


> I'm sure later technology has a lot to do with this but having
>enough power is also a factor.
>


Without a doubt on the technology. Comparing ten/twenty year old
vehicles with what is offered today is not relevant.

As an example, my '07 Tacoma, double cab, 2WD, Auto, V6, regular fuel,
which is a relevant comparison gets 19.5 around town and 22.5 on the
highway. No estimates here, I've kept nearly two years of data in a
spreadsheet, throwing out only those tanks used for towing (about 14
mpg depending on hills). So the manufacturers are using technology to
get better MPG across the board with regard to vehicle size.

As an example, I had a 1970 volkswagen beetle. As I recall it only
got 23 MPG and it was a U. S. mileage leader. Next car was a 73 Monte
Carlo with a 454. I don't want to talk about its MPG, brings back
nightmares.

Frank

jj

jo4hn

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 3:03 PM

Leon wrote:
[snip]

>
> BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific
> purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)
>

Well, let's check. Whose ad is on your pocket protector?

geeksville,
jo4hn

p.s. member is good standing of the LAPOOGAN
(loyal and protective order of geeks and nerds)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 8:11 PM

Morris Dovey wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for
>>> the
>>> specific purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we
>>> NERDS? ;~)
>>
>> Well, let's check. Whose ad is on your pocket protector?
>>
>> geeksville,
>> jo4hn
>>
>> p.s. member is good standing of the LAPOOGAN
>> (loyal and protective order of geeks and nerds)
>
> Hmm. I have a /leather/ pocket protector loaded up with a five-piece
> Rotring set - it matches the leather case for my nice yellow log-log
> Pickett N600-ES.

Mine doesn't really advertise anything, it just has a "United
Technologies Hamilton-Standard" logo on it.

> I suppose now I hafta go find some masking tape to
> put on my s/s glasses frames. ;-)

Flashing on conversation in the dentist's office the other day. The
lovely Doc Irina and her assistant were laughing about the guy who had
come in to fix their computer, who had his glasses held together with
masking tape. They're both Russian--I had to explain the concept of
"nerd" to them.

> What? I don't see any nerds...



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

27/08/2008 12:06 AM

Lee Michaels wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote
>>
>> Flashing on conversation in the dentist's office the other day.
>> The
>> lovely Doc Irina and her assistant were laughing about the guy who
>> had come in to fix their computer, who had his glasses held
>> together
>> with masking tape. They're both Russian--I had to explain the
>> concept of "nerd" to them.
>>
> The lovely Doc Irina, eh?
>
> What did you tell her who you were?

I think she's figured out that I'm just plain daft.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 11:58 AM

26/08/2008 1:01 PM


"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:58:31 -0500, "Leon"
> <
>
>
> Without a doubt on the technology. Comparing ten/twenty year old
> vehicles with what is offered today is not relevant.
>
> As an example, my '07 Tacoma, double cab, 2WD, Auto, V6, regular fuel,
> which is a relevant comparison gets 19.5 around town and 22.5 on the
> highway. No estimates here, I've kept nearly two years of data in a
> spreadsheet, throwing out only those tanks used for towing (about 14
> mpg depending on hills). So the manufacturers are using technology to
> get better MPG across the board with regard to vehicle size.
>
> As an example, I had a 1970 volkswagen beetle. As I recall it only
> got 23 MPG and it was a U. S. mileage leader. Next car was a 73 Monte
> Carlo with a 454. I don't want to talk about its MPG, brings back
> nightmares.
>
> Frank

With out a doubt fuel injection has been the big help followed by the
computer controlling everything. Computers have been on GM cars since 1980
IIRC and were used with carbureted engines, not such a good combination.
Once the carb was tossed the mileage improved dramatically. My dad's loaded
V6 Olds 98 got 32 mpg on the highway all day long. That was really pretty
darn good even by today's standards. My wife drives a loaded 2004 Accord
and gets no better with a 4 cyl engine. Smaller engines are pretty hard to
beat for in town driving but the bigger engines tend to be more efficient on
the highway when comparing the cubic inch increase to mileage decrease. I'm
only getting 10% less miles per gallon on the highway compared to your 07
Tacoma but in town your Tacoma kicks butt.

BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific
purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)

nn

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:45 AM

On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon" <[email protected]>

> Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.

Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
here in sunny San Antonio.

Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
their on a local level.

They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.

Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
(according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.

Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.

The second big mistake was to think that folks would pay the
difference. Sure, the Toyota is probably a better truck. But when I
was thinking of a new purchase about '07, the difference in price was
substantial. The new Ford would have cost me (after considerable
teeth gnashing negotiations) around $24K. But the new San Antonio
built Tundra would have been $34,900, with no negotiations.

That's 30 f'ing percent difference!!

Add in the financing on that difference, and it will knock you over.

There is also a perception here and in the surrounding areas that if
you have a problem with your Ford, GM or Dodge truck that if you need
parts in an emergency, you can find them cheaper and easier than if
you are looking for
parts for a Nissan or Toyota.

I would think that probably a large part of San Antonians are blue
collar, and certainly a lot of folks I know are. They work on their
own vehicles if at all possible. So if your starter or alternator
goes out on Sunday, it is nice to be able to go to the local auto
parts store and pick one up for a couple of hundred dollars and put it
on. Much better than waiting at the Toyota dealership for a $400+
starter on Monday and missing a day of work after the purchase to
install it.

Next, the Toyota guys admitted that they needed more offerings to take
on the local truck market. They brazenly bragged that they would take
over the truck market in Texas now that they had trucks made here.

But (mistake #3), they made no "work truck" available.

Most of us tooling around in our trucks don't need leather interiors,
a six banger CD casette changer, remote starter/kill switch, dual
climate controls, GPS navigation, 2 power points, deluxe wheel
packages and fancy, eye catching metalized plastic knobs and plastic
wood on the interiors.

So after these missteps, where did that leave Toyota? Last year,
after only being open for one, they "retooled" and came up with a less
well appointed truck. But since the idea was already in the heads of
most that they were too expensive, it was too late to save the
downward spiral.

So at the first of this year, they announced that sales were
"disappointing", and canceled the planned plant expansion that was to
take place to cover all the orders they had expected and taken for
granted would happen.

Then they dropped their prices to be more in line with the rest of the
market. Things didn't get better as their is now a perception that
there was some "friggin' in the riggin" " and that lowering their
prices as much as they have was the same as admitting they were trying
to screw folks.

Then they got caught in the same hole as every other manufacturer.
They have had a couple of recalls that didn't set well, and there
have been some mechanical problems that have caused some of the
truck's mechanics to be redesigned. (One of the problems for Toyota
is that being local, if the paint chips on a truck the local "news
defenders" send a team out to the plant to see of it is a trend.)

But now... to compound things they are trapped in the same stale
market as everyone else in the car industry. They laid off a couple
of hundred workers last month, and the plant has been shuttered since
the first of August and will be until the first of October. Closed.
Period. No work.

To their great credit, Toyota has seen fit to pay their workers FULL
wages while sorting this out. It isn't altogether an altruistic favor
on the part of Toyota; they have many thousands of dollars in training
even the workers with even the most mundane jobs.

It is an interesting, ongoing soap opera here. Toyota isn't going
anywhere. But lessons were learned the hard way, just like at GM,
Ford, etc. The public will eventually get what they want. You can
now buy a Tundra work type truck, for just a smidge over the Fords and
Chevys.

But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
with the lowly public consumer.

With that in mind, it will be interesting to see their next move.

Just a few thoughts...

Robert





Nn

Nova

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 10:48 PM

Leon wrote:
> "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9c%[email protected]...
>
>>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>> If you're not already running synthetic oil, DO. You'll not only
>>increase your fuel mileage (one mpg, maybe more) but you'll change oil
>>less often and reduce wear on bearings, rings, valve train and the like.
>>
>>Dave in Houston
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm running synthetic, firggen 0W-20 as per Toyota's strong
> recommendation over 5W-20. If it were not synthetic I'd be skerd as heck.
>
>

See:

http://www.smartsynthetics.com/articles/5w20oil.htm

"The main reason 5W-20 or 0W-20 oil was specified for your engine is to
increase the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) reported to the
Federal Government. CAFE is the combined average fuel economy of all of
a vehicle manufacturers product line. Minimum CAFE levels are specified
by the Federal Government. In order for a vehicle manufacturer to
continue selling profitable large trucks and SUV's, which typically have
poor fuel mileage ratings, as compared to smaller cars, and still meet
mandated CAFE requirements, they must also sell enough of the smaller
cars which have much better fuel economy ratings to offset the poor fuel
economy ratings of the larger vehicles. For model year 2001, the change
to a 5W-20 oil will allow Honda and Ford's overall CAFE to increase by a
very small amount, typically in the tenths of a mile per gallon range.
5W-20 oil is a lighter viscosity than a 5W-30 oil and therefore has
less internal engine frictional losses, or less drag on the crankshaft,
pistons and valve train, which in turn promotes increased fuel economy.
This increased fuel economy is virtually undetectable to the average
motorist without the use of specialized engine monitoring and testing
equipment under strictly controlled test track driving when compared to
a 5W-30, 10W-30 or a 0W-30 viscosity motor oil. "

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

nn

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

24/08/2008 9:36 PM

On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
> Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

Robert

BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 3:35 PM

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Drop the tailgate and gain about 1/2 MPG.

Didn't see Mythbusters? <G>

<http://www.scangauge.com/support/tailgate.shtml>
<http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/aerodynamics/fuel-economy-tip-keep-your-tailgate-up/>
<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_lowering_the_tailgate_on_a_pickup_truck_increase_mpg>

Maybe your net was simply much lighter than the steel gate?

The gate up and latched also improves pickup box crash performance. I
would also imagine a lowered gate becoming a projectile in a crash.

I'll bet your web gate trapped enough air to create almost the same
cushion as the steel gate.

Ft

Fred the Red Shirt

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

21/08/2008 12:35 PM

On Aug 21, 11:15 am, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alas, Tim, the world is not quite so black and white as you see it.
> ...
> >.... For example, my first passion in
> >life is not woodworking but traditional B&W silver chemical photography.
> >My field camera is a hand made wooden box (Honduran quarter sawn mahogany and
> >shiny brass) that I paid a *lot* for. Why? Because it is a superbly
> >executed instrument that nothing else can touch in its class. It does
> >thing that *no* digital camera, at any price can do (including the
> >$40K Hasselblad H-39). The manufacturer, Wisner, has a nice little
> >high end business, building the "best" of something for people who
> >know the difference. ...

He didn't say he SEES it that way.

He said he PHOTOGRAPHS it that way...

--

FF

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 9:26 AM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:45:08 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
>> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
>> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>>
>> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
>> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
>> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
>> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
>> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
>> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>>
>> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
>> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
>> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
>> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>
>That seems surreal in an environment that worships sending off all our jobs
>to China.
>
>If in fact it would be a lot more expensive to manufacture it in the USA,
>why did they choose to do it? Any reliable gossip on that?

The price prediction more or less conjecture on my part, neither
gossip nor hard facts to support. However, there was a pricing spread
when the unit was made in Tupelo, but despite that fact, sales were
growing. I've always believed that there is a part of the market that
is willing to pay the premium for a higher level of quality.
Certainly, those that make their living with a tool are not as
sensitive to price as they are to accuracy, long standing reliability
and serviceablity.
>
>And how about their recent policy shift on stocking parts for their old
>tools. Any change there?
>
Don't know about that. Conjecture once again, but B & D may be making
parts discontinuance decisions based on the status of the tooling.
Prior to their obtaining the tool group, a lot of tooling, both
supplier and in-house, was lost in the shuffle. Puts them between a
rock and a hard place as replacing tools for very low volume parts
sales is extraordinarily expensive.

Frank


>

JS

John Siegel

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 12:51 PM



Swingman wrote:
> http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editorsblog&entry=291
>
>
Did you note the comment that the only thing the new saw has in common
with the classic Unisaw is its name.

Nevertheless I thought some of the new features were quite interesting.
Both the height and angle wheels are on the front. The demonstrater
claimed that the new angle guage was accurate to 1/2 degree. Built in
riving knife easily adjusted for non-through cuts or completely removable.
John

CS

Charlie Self

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 10:59 AM

On Aug 26, 12:02 pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> krw <[email protected]> writes:
> >In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
> >[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
> >> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>
> >> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
> >> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
>
> >My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
> >Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
> >to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
> >My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
> >thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
>
> My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
> 25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
> which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.
>
> ('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)
>
> scot

Drop the tailgate and gain about 1/2 MPG. I used a tailgate net for
years in my Dodge pick-up. It worked nicely to save the odd gallon
here and there. I bought that truck with 32,000 on it and sold it just
before it turned 200,000. The only out-of-usual replacement in that
time was the water pump. A friend told me he'd seen it the other day,
about 4-1/2 years after I sold it, with new ladder racks installed.
Slant 6 auto, so it may well last forever.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

30/08/2008 8:49 AM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> He didn't get paid because he slid it under the rug. He *HAD* to,
> or he would have been stuck with a "rebuilt" vehicle with zero miles
> on it. They usually don't have insurance against such things either
> (thou$and$ in deductibles).


He got paid. I got paid. The used vehicle status does not apply in Texas
simply because you replace a part.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 1:12 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> ... The Tundra was $5,000 more than the GMC and I had no problem with
>> paying the difference. The Toyota ride and feel was that much better.
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.
> ...
>
> For a truck to use as a real truck I see no advantage whatsoever in the
> Tundra. AFAIK still no diesel available(?), higher price, lower payload,
> and at least here the resale value is, if not terrible, not good (worse
> than Ford, even)...

From what I understand, Toyota will be offering the Tundra in a diesel dualy
soon.

>
> Dodge is by far top farm truck locally, followed by Chevy. Ford is tops
> in the oil patch fleets by a (relatively slim) margin over Chevy. Dodge
> hasn't made inroads there for some reason in the fleet sales.
>
> I've stayed w/ Chevy simply because everything we've ever had has been a
> Chevy going back to the '28 I learned to drive in (and which we used daily
> as a feed wagon until the late '50s) and consequently know the dealership
> so thoroughly there's no reason to switch. I'm sure could get by w/ the
> Tundra (the same dealership also has Toyota but they outsell the Tundra by
> >10:1 w/ Chevy for work-oriented trucks according to Pete). Their Toyota
> auto says are about even w/ GM products, however.

I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston the
ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's than you
see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.



Uu

"Upscale"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:57 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold
gaskets,
> 1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC
blower
> motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K miles.
> And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get me
> started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....

You know what that sounds like ~ The inkjet market. Original product is
cheap, the real profit comes with the sale of consumables, in this case, car
parts. Wonder how much of it is planned obsolescence?

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 7:14 PM


"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2L%sk.887$w51.156@trnddc01...

> See:
>
> http://www.smartsynthetics.com/articles/5w20oil.htm
>
> "The main reason 5W-20 or 0W-20 oil was specified for your engine is to
> increase the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) reported to the Federal
> Government. CAFE is the combined average fuel economy of all of a vehicle
> manufacturers product line. Minimum CAFE levels are specified by the
> Federal Government. In order for a vehicle manufacturer to continue
> selling profitable large trucks and SUV's, which typically have poor fuel
> mileage ratings, as compared to smaller cars, and still meet mandated CAFE
> requirements, they must also sell enough of the smaller cars which have
> much better fuel economy ratings to offset the poor fuel economy ratings
> of the larger vehicles. For model year 2001, the change to a 5W-20 oil
> will allow Honda and Ford's overall CAFE to increase by a very small
> amount, typically in the tenths of a mile per gallon range. 5W-20 oil is a
> lighter viscosity than a 5W-30 oil and therefore has less internal engine
> frictional losses, or less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valve
> train, which in turn promotes increased fuel economy. This increased fuel
> economy is virtually undetectable to the average motorist without the use
> of specialized engine monitoring and testing equipment under strictly
> controlled test track driving when compared to a 5W-30, 10W-30 or a 0W-30
> viscosity motor oil. "


Oops, I lied; the Amsoil Signature Series is 0W30, NOT 5W30. I actually
run the Series 3000 HD Diesel in my Power Stroke which is 5W30. The F250
has in excess of 180k miles all but the first 8k on Amsoil. I put 183k
miles on a '91 Checvy 1500 Silverado 305 gas rig, all but the first 4k miles
on Amsoil and the Land Cruiser is approaching 60k. A friend has gone over
the 300k mile mark on his '96 Dodge Cummins. We both run the oil 24,000
miles between changes with filter changes at 6,000 though I've gone to 8,000
between filters since Amsoil came out with their EA line of filters (they
guarantee them 12,000 miles).

Dave in Houston

TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 10:20 AM

Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Renata wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>> I don't claim the world is that binary. But markets have a funny
>> way of punishing stupidity and sloth. I am currently in the market
>> to replace my old Chevy truck. Chevy is begging for my business
>> with unbelievable rebates. The problem? I don't know if they
>> can survive long enough to support the warranty period, let along
>> the very long run I tend to own a vehicle. I think I am buying
>> a Japanese product. This is the market doing its job. Perhaps
>> someday, the UAW worker who is getting full wages and benefits without
>> having worked for years may get clued in their that their avarice
>> destroyed a national institution. Then again... perhaps not.
>
> I worked for GM dealerships, and sold wholesale GM parts for many years. I
> have owned 2 GM trucks and my 3rd truck is an 07 Toyota Tundra. I started
> out with appointments to drive GMC, Chev, and Toyota. I was so disappointed
> in the GM products ride quality and feel that I almost said I'll wait a few
> more years. The local GMC dealer called me at home after my first visit and
> offered me an "extremely" good deal on the truck I wanted and a good trade
> in price on my 97 Chevy PU. IIRC $18,000 drive out. I drove the GMC
> trucks again and went to the Toyota dealer and drove the Tundra. The Tundra
> was $5,000 more than the GMC and I had no problem with paying the
> difference. The Toyota ride and feel was that much better.
>
> Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.
>
>

When I said "truck", I really meant "SUV". I have driven a Tundra, and I
agree that they are really well screwed together machines. Alas, an SUV
serves my day-to-day purposes better than a pick-em-up truck. So, I think
I am going to retire my '95 Tahoe (with which I was 98% happy) with a
a new Nissan Pathfinder - which is much more to my liking than the
new Tahoes with their endless list of useless "features" designed to
grab the soccer mom crowd and of no value at all when hauling wood, skis,
scuba tanks, and so forth. What's really astonishing is that when I
ask the Chevy dealers to get me a base model vehicle with only a
few options, their almost universal response is "we don't bring them
in that way." OK, and I don't buy them any other way. Still ... they
are knocking $10K off the price these days which means the Tahoe - even
pimped out some - is monetarily attractive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

DG

"David G. Nagel"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 3:38 PM

B A R R Y wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have
>> always gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains.
>> Thinner air does not require as high of octane from the fuel to
>> prevent valve clatter and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87
>> or better your mileage could increase also. Typically gas octane in
>> high elevation regions has an 85 or lower rating.
>
> Thinner air requires a leaner mixture, but overall horsepower is reduced.
>
> This is demonstrated to me every time I fly. <G>
I can't speak to milage in this situation but I was always taught that
increasing Octane reduced knock caused by preignition of low octane gas.
This has nothing to do with valve chatter.

Dave

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 5:13 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
> gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
> does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter
> and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage
> could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has
> an 85 or lower rating.

Just back from a week through Colorado and SE Utah in the wife's '06
LandCrusier. I have noticed the same phenomenon this trip and in previous
trips in my '01F250 Power Stroke. Mountain driving seems to improve fuel
mileage by as much as two mpg. I theorize that much of it is due to
decreased speeds, often 45 to 55 mph vs. 75 to 80 on the Colorado, Utah, and
New Mexico interstates. The LandCruiser's trip computer fuel mileage drops
down under 12 mpg out in West Texas where the interstate speed limit is now
80.

If you're not already running synthetic oil, DO. You'll not only
increase your fuel mileage (one mpg, maybe more) but you'll change oil less
often and reduce wear on bearings, rings, valve train and the like.

Dave in Houston

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 5:21 PM


"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>B A R R Y wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
>>> gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
>>> does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve
>>> clatter and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your
>>> mileage could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation
>>> regions has an 85 or lower rating.
>>
>> Thinner air requires a leaner mixture, but overall horsepower is reduced.
>>
>> This is demonstrated to me every time I fly. <G>
> I can't speak to milage in this situation but I was always taught that
> increasing Octane reduced knock caused by preignition of low octane gas.
> This has nothing to do with valve chatter.

Yeah, I misspoke there.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 8:05 AM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In
>>>> Houston the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new
>>>> Tundra's than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.
>>> I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
>> off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a
>> question to which is the better vehicle for the money.
>
> In that case there's absolutely no question in my mind the Tacoma is
> overpriced. For that a purpose a Ford Econoline would do.


Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.

Sk

"Swingman"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 8:16 AM


"Frank Boettcher" wrote

>
> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.

> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
> Pentair, didn't have a clue.

That's heartening sign! Thanks for sharing.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 9:40 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston
>> the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's
>> than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.
>
> I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...
>
> --

Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a question
to which is the better vehicle for the money.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 10:37 AM


"Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> That seems surreal in an environment that worships sending off all our
> jobs to China.
>
> If in fact it would be a lot more expensive to manufacture it in the USA,
> why did they choose to do it? Any reliable gossip on that?



If quality is better sales should be OK. Festool is expensive and doing
well. Consumers are willing to pay extra for quality but not extra and
lower quality.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 9:11 AM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.
>
> Far more economical, even if a Ford...and it wouldn't be me... :)
>
> --

LOL

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 7:42 PM


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:de3cdc09-d955-4c15-bfb8-f60830ee1cfb@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 9:20 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
>> highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL
>
> Pretty funny. I missed it in the post.
>
> Seriously though, how much gear do you carry in your truck to get that
> kind of mileage?


Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 6:58 AM


"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
> I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
> find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
> the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
> and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
> like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
> prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
> and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
> Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
> is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
> again.


You will probably be happy with that vehicle. My neighbor bouught
essentially the same thing 2 years ago but the GMC version. I have no
problems with these vehicles as far as comfort are concerned, they have full
and comfortabhle back seats unlike the truck extend cabs and their doors
fasten securely unlike the truck extended cabs the Gm is currently making.




> What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
> of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
> the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
> truck frames. Go figure ...

I noticed the same thing, I was considering down sizing until I noticed that
the gas mileage was not that great of savings. Very often the smaller
vehicles are simply under powered by compairison to the larger vehicles with
the stronger engines. Small engines do use less fuel unless they have to
strain more to perform like you want. I had an 87 Isuzu Trooper with a 140
hp 4 cyl engine that got 14 in town, 20 on the highway. I replaced it with
a 97 Chevy extended cab with a 230 hp 5.0 liter engine, it got 13-14 in
town and 20 on the highway. My 07 Tundra 4 door with 381 hp 5.7 gets 15+ in
town and 20 on the highway. Although each new vehicle got larger and had
more considerably more hp gas mileage pretty much stayed the same and or
improved. I'm sure later technology has a lot to do with this but having
enough power is also a factor.


>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 5:36 PM


"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9c%[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> If you're not already running synthetic oil, DO. You'll not only
> increase your fuel mileage (one mpg, maybe more) but you'll change oil
> less often and reduce wear on bearings, rings, valve train and the like.
>
> Dave in Houston
>

Yeah, I'm running synthetic, firggen 0W-20 as per Toyota's strong
recommendation over 5W-20. If it were not synthetic I'd be skerd as heck.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 10:39 AM


"Tom G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fGWqk.358$lf2.77@trnddc07...
>>
> Interesting story on NBC news last night. Seems that Chinese
> manufacturing is in trouble. They estimate that 30 percent of the
> factories in one province will shutter their doors in the next year. As
> one Chinese interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore". Labor
> laws in China have doubled the minimum wage in the last year or so. Many
> companies are moving their manufacturing sites to Vietnam and Indonesia as
> a result.


I have heard the same, plus the Chinese have been hoarding oil and gasoline
to prepare for the Olympics.

BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 1:13 PM

Leon wrote:
>
>
> Toyota now has the Tundra looking SUV but if you want smaller the Pathfinder
> should fill the bill.

They also make the 4Runner, based on the Tacoma.

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 9:27 PM

In article <25de507d-95bf-4962-bbcf-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
> > Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.
>
> Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
> here in sunny San Antonio.
>
> Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
> best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
> their on a local level.
>
> They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
> Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
> Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
> plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.
>
> Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
> that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
> (according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
> any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
> All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.
>
> Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
> indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
> San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
> populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
> truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
> that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

Freight is the same no matter where the vehicle is delivered. Any
differences in price is the dealer's, not Toyota's.

> The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
> dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
> thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.

That's likely the whole story right there. The local dealers
thought they could gouge the consumer.


<snip>

--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

25/08/2008 7:12 PM

In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>
> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.

My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a
look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut?
;-)

--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 6:47 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> krw <[email protected]> writes:
> >In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
> >[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
> >> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
> >>
> >> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
> >> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
> >
> >My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
> >Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
> >to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
> >My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
> >thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
>
> My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
> 25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
> which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.
>
> ('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)

('01 4.0l 6-cyl, auto, super cab, 4WD, AC) 65K miles. Apparently it
was in an accident before I bought it (*NEW*) because the pait is
all cracking and there is evidence of replaced parts. :-(

--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 6:50 PM

In article <oG%[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Jz%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:9c%[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> If you're not already running synthetic oil, DO. You'll not only
> >> increase your fuel mileage (one mpg, maybe more) but you'll change oil
> >> less often and reduce wear on bearings, rings, valve train and the like.
> >>
> >> Dave in Houston
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I'm running synthetic, firggen 0W-20 as per Toyota's strong
> > recommendation over 5W-20. If it were not synthetic I'd be skerd as heck.
>
>
> I heard that. When I went to Amsoil's Signature Series 5W30 I watched
> the oil pressure gauge drop from just above the half-way mark to about two
> needle widths above the quarter mark.

I know an Amsoil franchisee who claims the same thing, even after he
seized an engine on the stuff. ;-)

--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

27/08/2008 6:22 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > ('01 4.0l 6-cyl, auto, super cab, 4WD, AC) 65K miles. Apparently it
> > was in an accident before I bought it (*NEW*) because the pait is
> > all cracking and there is evidence of replaced parts. :-(
>
>
> It is not uncommon for "new" vehicles to be delivered to the dealership
> damaged and that does not mean that they were in an accident.

True, but it cannot (legally) be sold as new after. The best I can
find is that it was delivered fine but it was severely damaged at
the dealership, who covered it up. The whole truck was repainted.
Poorly.

> Way back in January of 1978, the first year that I worked for an Oldsmobile
> dealer our body shop and the Oldsmobile rep were inspecting the roof on a
> new Cutlass. Setting on top of the roof panel was a huge hunk of ice that
> apparently had some road debris mixed in. The hunk of ice had been sliding
> around and literally "sanded?" a hole in the roof of the car. You had to
> see it to believe it. The transport driver brought it to our attention that
> the seats were wet and the headliner was soaking wet.

Amazing.

> We also saw a quarter panel that had been ground down so thin that you could
> push it in with your finger. This vehicle was also straight off the trans
> port truck with factory paint.
>
> Both the above mentioned vehicles required major panel replacements.

I guess!

> Then there is the very common damaged caused by hail storms that will damage
> hundreds of new vehicles setting on the dealers lot. While minor dents can
> be repaired that type of repair soon becomes more expensive that replacing a
> bolt on panel or fender.

Yes, and such damage must be disclosed. The vehicles can't be sold
as new.


--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

28/08/2008 7:03 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > True, but it cannot (legally) be sold as new after. The best I can
> > find is that it was delivered fine but it was severely damaged at
> > the dealership, who covered it up. The whole truck was repainted.
> > Poorly.
>
> Actually they can legally sell the vehicle as new. The only way they
> cannot sell the vehicle as new is if you are not the first owner ov the
> vehicle. If you bought the vehicle, never took it off the lot, got it
> licensed in your name, and traded it back in for another vehicle it would
> then have to be sold ad a used vehicle. The dealer is however required to
> disclose any information concerning any major damage repairs done to the
> vehicle.

Not true. If it has been damaged more than some percentage of its
value (depends on state, but is ueuslly quite low 5% where I was at
the time, IIRC), it cannot be sold as new. It must be sold as
rebuilt.

> Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance company will
> total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a lot
> of repaired damage is not going to sell.

If it's not disclosed, it may. :-(

> Vehicles are damaged on the lot on a daily basis, nothing new there.

Not to that extent, and *not* covered up.

> >> Way back in January of 1978, the first year that I worked for an
> >> Oldsmobile
> >> dealer our body shop and the Oldsmobile rep were inspecting the roof on a
> >> new Cutlass. Setting on top of the roof panel was a huge hunk of ice
> >> that
> >> apparently had some road debris mixed in. The hunk of ice had been
> >> sliding
> >> around and literally "sanded?" a hole in the roof of the car. You had to
> >> see it to believe it. The transport driver brought it to our attention
> >> that
> >> the seats were wet and the headliner was soaking wet.
> >
> > Amazing.
> >
> >> We also saw a quarter panel that had been ground down so thin that you
> >> could
> >> push it in with your finger. This vehicle was also straight off the
> >> trans
> >> port truck with factory paint.
> >>
> >> Both the above mentioned vehicles required major panel replacements.
> >
> > I guess!
> >
> >> Then there is the very common damaged caused by hail storms that will
> >> damage
> >> hundreds of new vehicles setting on the dealers lot. While minor dents
> >> can
> >> be repaired that type of repair soon becomes more expensive that
> >> replacing a
> >> bolt on panel or fender.
> >
> > Yes, and such damage must be disclosed. The vehicles can't be sold
> > as new.
>
> Yes the damage has to be disclosed but they can be sold as new, at least in
> Texas.

It sure can't in most states.


--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

29/08/2008 6:20 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Not true. If it has been damaged more than some percentage of its
> > value (depends on state, but is ueuslly quite low 5% where I was at
> > the time, IIRC), it cannot be sold as new. It must be sold as
> > rebuilt.
> >
> >> Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance company
> >> will
> >> total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a
> >> lot
> >> of repaired damage is not going to sell.
> >
> > If it's not disclosed, it may. :-(
>
> If the dealer wants to get paid for the repair it would be disclosed.

*IF*. The fact is that the dealer doesn't get paid.

> >> Vehicles are damaged on the lot on a daily basis, nothing new there.
> >
> >>
> >> Yes the damage has to be disclosed but they can be sold as new, at least
> >> in
> >> Texas.
> >
> > It sure can't in most states.
>
> I am sure you are right as I recall the there are often warnings on the
> local news after a flood in other states to be leery of new cars being sold
> as new. Vehicles involved in floods with water over the bottom of the dash
> will forever be problematic.

You bet! It's not only new cars either. Anything recent can be a
problem.

> Typically if the vehicle was a factory damaged problem or one where the
> transportation company was liable the factory would arrange to buy back the
> vehicle and donate it to a local trade school. Other than that in Texas, an
> issued title is all that makes a vehicle used.

Best I can tell, it was delivered OK.

--
Keith

kk

krw

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

29/08/2008 8:42 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Not true. If it has been damaged more than some percentage of its
> >> > value (depends on state, but is ueuslly quite low 5% where I was at
> >> > the time, IIRC), it cannot be sold as new. It must be sold as
> >> > rebuilt.
> >> >
> >> >> Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance
> >> >> company
> >> >> will
> >> >> total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a
> >> >> lot
> >> >> of repaired damage is not going to sell.
> >> >
> >> > If it's not disclosed, it may. :-(
> >>
> >> If the dealer wants to get paid for the repair it would be disclosed.
> >
> > *IF*. The fact is that the dealer doesn't get paid.
>
> Uh, yeah, the dealer gets paid, it was one of my responsibilities that he
> did. Being in management in the body shop no work was performed until the
> insurance company approved the cost to repair. Now minor scratches or
> molding digs were typically absorbed by the dealer as it cost more in time
> to have the unit setting and not being available for sale.

He didn't get paid because he slid it under the rug. He *HAD* to,
or he would have been stuck with a "rebuilt" vehicle with zero miles
on it. They usually don't have insurance against such things either
(thou$and$ in deductibles).

--
Keith

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 8:23 AM


"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold
> gaskets,
>> 1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC
> blower
>> motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K
>> miles.
>> And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get
>> me
>> started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....
>
> You know what that sounds like ~ The inkjet market. Original product is
> cheap, the real profit comes with the sale of consumables, in this case,
> car
> parts. Wonder how much of it is planned obsolescence?

Actually back in the 70, 80, and 90's when I was still in the thick of the
automotive marketing Ford was always the less expensive vehicle to buy when
compared to the comparable GM vehicle. Because dealerships take trade-ins
and often kept them to sell on the used car lot they also had to do some
repairs to the vehicle that they took in on trade. More often than not in
Houston the trade in on an Oldsmobile was a Ford or Mercury vs. any other
brand other than GM. Parts that the consumer normally would not purchase
like a dash or door trim panel were often 50 to 100% more expensive to
purchase than the relatively same GM part and that was also when comparing
the list price.

Planned obsolescence? Nawwwww.. LOL... Actually GM built some really good
parts and some really piss poor parts. As an example the GM blower motor
for the AC always went bad. It would work but would develop a squeak. They
were unable to fix/did not want to fix this problem from 1978 until at least
1995. Oddly GM alternators were pretty reliable until they switched over to
using a single serpentine drive belt vs. the multiple belts to drive the
individual components. Once the alternators were fitted with the larger
pulleys for the serpentine belts they started to burn up, the front bearing
got hot enough that most all the electronics, stator, voltage regulator,
rectifier bridge, and brushes would burn up and replacing the unit was less
expensive that repairing it. Same goes for the old GM AC compressors. The
old style 6 cylinder Frigidaire compressors could be easily rebuilt, the R4
radial replacements that began to show up in the mid 70's could not be
rebuilt.

LM

"Lee Michaels"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 3:29 PM


<[email protected]> wrote
>
> OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all
> day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back
> seats.
>
> I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton
> with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a
> rhino with that thing.
>
> #2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual
> transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded
> onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat,
> short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool
> boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.
>
> You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the
> tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same
> time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the
> interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped
> cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.
>
> The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I
> didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as
> my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did
> everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.
>
> Those were the days.
>

Let me wipe a tear from my eye when talking about the good ole trucks that
earned their keep and built america.

Where I grew up, we had a lot of poor farmers and loggers. What we used to
do with all kinds of old trucks was to cut of the body and shorten the
frame. Put on some big tires, maybe a winch and make ourselves a home made
tractor. One of the primary functions of this home made tractor was to pull
out our regular tractor when it got into trouble.

Many of them were pretty funky in appearance. We welded on a seat from an
old horse drawn wagon onto ours. Big metal leaf spring type affair with a
seat that had holes to drain the rain water. Our neighbor just had a big
chink of wood for his seat.

Nothing fancy. No cab, no air conditioning. no seats, etc. Often we put
some pig iron or other weights on it. Quick and dirty to build. But these
things saved our asses and other equipment again and again. And one of the
reason why we could get away with it was because we were building it out of
something that was quite substantial to begin with.

I can't imagine building anything like this out of the contemporary, pretty
boys trucks.




Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 10:52 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...

> ...
> That jibes w/ what I observe in farm country w/ oil as the secondary
> industry use. I've not seen a single Halliburton, Schlumberger, Best, or
> any other service or pipeline vehicle other than the Big 3.
>
> Last time there was even one on the lot in town it was still at least 20%
> list above GM product and as noted, it was in the pimped out version.
>
> The lack of the diesel really hurt them here where the amount of heavy
> towing is quite high -- if not large stock/horse trailers, anhydrous
> ammonia tanks into soft, sandy fields take torque and lugging power.
>
> There are a few I know who use them to take the dogs out for pheasant
> hunting, but that's about as rugged a use as they get. That's not "work"
> in my way of thinking...well it's work, but not for the truck. :)


Well, in defense of the new Tundra, time will tell.

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 6:24 PM

"Frank Boettcher" wrote:

> But it makes me feel good to see
> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it
> where
> Pentair, didn't have a clue.

Near as I can tell, about the only thing Pentair didn't totally screw
up was Hoffman electrical enclosures.

Lew

sS

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal)

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 4:02 PM

krw <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
>[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage from
>> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>>
>> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
>> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
>
>My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
>Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
>to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
>My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
>thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)

My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.

('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)

scot

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 8:06 PM

"Frank Boettcher" wrote:

> They went away from the original business model which was to acquire
> underperforming companies with great names, leave them autonomous
> and
> give local management the support to do what needed to be done.

Back in the early 60s, a guy named Tinkham Veal, a Clevelander, formed
Alco Standard, basically a holding company.

Aimed at the sole proprietor of a $3-$5Meg business..

The idea was that Alco would provide all of the overhead services such
as human services, legal, etc, thus freeing up time to concentrate on
growing the business.

In return, the sole proprietor would exchange their stock for Alco
stock

Was successful back then, have no idea where things stand today.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

28/08/2008 9:38 AM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> True, but it cannot (legally) be sold as new after. The best I can
> find is that it was delivered fine but it was severely damaged at
> the dealership, who covered it up. The whole truck was repainted.
> Poorly.

Actually they can legally sell the vehicle as new. The only way they
cannot sell the vehicle as new is if you are not the first owner ov the
vehicle. If you bought the vehicle, never took it off the lot, got it
licensed in your name, and traded it back in for another vehicle it would
then have to be sold ad a used vehicle. The dealer is however required to
disclose any information concerning any major damage repairs done to the
vehicle.

Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance company will
total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a lot
of repaired damage is not going to sell.

Vehicles are damaged on the lot on a daily basis, nothing new there.


>> Way back in January of 1978, the first year that I worked for an
>> Oldsmobile
>> dealer our body shop and the Oldsmobile rep were inspecting the roof on a
>> new Cutlass. Setting on top of the roof panel was a huge hunk of ice
>> that
>> apparently had some road debris mixed in. The hunk of ice had been
>> sliding
>> around and literally "sanded?" a hole in the roof of the car. You had to
>> see it to believe it. The transport driver brought it to our attention
>> that
>> the seats were wet and the headliner was soaking wet.
>
> Amazing.
>
>> We also saw a quarter panel that had been ground down so thin that you
>> could
>> push it in with your finger. This vehicle was also straight off the
>> trans
>> port truck with factory paint.
>>
>> Both the above mentioned vehicles required major panel replacements.
>
> I guess!
>
>> Then there is the very common damaged caused by hail storms that will
>> damage
>> hundreds of new vehicles setting on the dealers lot. While minor dents
>> can
>> be repaired that type of repair soon becomes more expensive that
>> replacing a
>> bolt on panel or fender.
>
> Yes, and such damage must be disclosed. The vehicles can't be sold
> as new.

Yes the damage has to be disclosed but they can be sold as new, at least in
Texas.


BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 9:20 AM

Leon wrote:
>
> Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
> worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp
> and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media"
> has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine
> will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning
> premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less
> than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels
> tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.


The big V8 in a comparably laid-out Tundra gets within 1 MPG of my V6
_Tacoma_!

My Tacoma is also cheaper per mile on Premium than Regular gas. My
manual recommends Premium fuel.

BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 3:36 PM

Leon wrote:
>
> By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
> gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
> does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter
> and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage
> could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an
> 85 or lower rating.

Thinner air requires a leaner mixture, but overall horsepower is reduced.

This is demonstrated to me every time I fly. <G>

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

21/08/2008 7:47 PM

Frank Boettcher wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:24:45 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Frank Boettcher" wrote:
>>
>>> But it makes me feel good to see
>>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it
>>> where
>>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>
>>Near as I can tell, about the only thing Pentair didn't totally screw
>>up was Hoffman electrical enclosures.
>>
>>Lew
>>
> Lew, Pentair is doing much better in the business they chose to remain
> in that is the water business and the enclosure business. These fit
> their business model a little better. Consolidation and globalization
> work a lot better when globalization does not just mean send
> everything to China, but, actually develop markets outside the U. S.
> Those two groups are also more industrial and infrastructure related
> and less retail in nature, unlike the tool group and the vehicle
> service equipment group, both of which they ruined trying to apply a
> business model that had no chance of working.
>
> They went away from the original business model which was to acquire
> underperforming companies with great names, leave them autonomous and
> give local management the support to do what needed to be done. The
> current management wants, it seems, to turn it into a G. E. on a
> smaller scale. Not surprised at this, the current CEO is both ex G.
> E. and ex McKinsey.
>
> I think they will do well in the future, with most of the growth from
> markets in Europe and Aisa, although one component of the business is
> pool and spa which has been really negatively affected by the housing
> downturn. If you can anticipate the timing of that turning around, it
> would be a good stock to buy at that point. (disclosure, I own it).
>

Their stock prices haven't done well for quite some time. They were going
pretty well when they had Delta, afterwards, they lost a significant amount
of value and have been hovering in the $34 to $37 range, off from highs in
the low 40's.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Sk

"Swingman"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 11:28 AM

http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editorsblog&entry=291


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

CS

Charlie Self

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

21/08/2008 5:29 AM

On Aug 20, 5:26 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I doubt it.. There isn't a lot design changes you
> > could make to a fence.
>
> > Since Delta owns both, why change such a successful product ?
>
> I think a track for a feather board would be a nice improvement and or a way
> to keep the far end of the fence down to make a feather board applying
> downward pressure more effective.

Quick change for the faces is nice, too. Check the HTC.

CS

Charlie Self

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

21/08/2008 5:38 AM

On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat Barber wrote:
> > I doubt it.. There isn't a lot design changes you
> > could make to a fence.
>
> > Since Delta owns both, why change such a successful product ?
>
> > Leon wrote:
> >> "John Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>>http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editors...
>
> >>> Did you note the comment that the only thing the new saw has in
> >>> common with the classic Unisaw is its name.
>
> >> I did, I wonder if the Beismeyer and or Unifence is gone.
>
> The one on the saw in the video looks a lot like a Bies.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Love to get one of these. Years ago, I did an endurance report on what
might have been one of the last USA made Unisaws, for WWJ. It would be
fun to do a back-up with this one, see how it compares, and how many
problems crop up over a year. What improvements are real; what
improvements are marketing. Take the lid off and check the trunnions
for size and machining and the complexity--and size and quality--of
any lift and tilt gearing that differs from the original Unisaw. Check
how difficult the saw could be to adjust in 10-15-20 years, not that
I'll be checking tablesaws at those times, but others will. Check
prices. Yeah, this has to be for what Lew calls the "carriage trade"
for a series of reasons. Chinese labor costs may have risen
considerably, but they are nowhere near most U.S.labor costs.
Pollution controls in the U.S. add to costs, as do other environmental
regs. Insurance costs are higher here. U.S. cast iron probably still
draws a premium. Add to that the simple fact that they're apparently
pushing this saw as a complete item. Will they offer the basic saw and
let the woodworker build his/her own tables, drawers, etc.? At the
moment, it doesn't sound like that is going to happen. I'd also like
to see if there are plans to follow the Steel City example and make a
solid granite top available.

I wish it a solid success.

But I also wonder if they'll offer the basic Unisaw as, say, Unisaw
Classic.

BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 11:00 AM

dpb wrote:
>
>
> I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

The real work trucks in my area are Sprinter vans and 14' light box
trucks. <G>

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 11:11 AM

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:58:35 -0400, B A R R Y <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>I doubt the Dakota would have changed my final results, but I thought it
>silly that a serious truck buyer wasn't aware the truck existed. What a
>marketing plan...


I doubt it would have. I had a '98 Dakota extended cab with V-6,
really liked it, but found myself needing the bigger back seat and
somewhat more tow capacity. Looked at a new Dakota with a full crew
cab, but found that in order to get the tow capacity I needed, I would
have to go to a V-8 and have dismal MPG, both in town and highway. So
looked at all those you mentioned, ended up with a '07 Tacoma, best
fuel efficiency and tow capacity in the class (for a V-6). That was
when gas was $2.50 or so. Sure glad I chose what I did.

But you're right, Dakotas get very few ad dollars. May go back to the
time when they truly had a monopoly in that size range. And the
Dakota had no service issues the whole time I owned it just over eight
years. It was a good truck. Sold it to a friend and he is very
satisfied also, still no major maintenance. Too bad they didn't keep
up with what was predictably going to be a hot spot, that is MPG.

Frank

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 9:20 AM

OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL



nn

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 12:03 PM

On Aug 23, 8:55 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> The thing is, this is more perception than reality.

Not in the specific case of the Titan to which I was referring. The
travails of the Titan have been well documented, and they have finally
given up on trying to fix them.

http://tinyurl.com/6lajrr

Much more than an economic move, a small amount of research will
reveal that assembly problems, rear end problems, and overall quality
control problems contributed to this move. Since this is just idle
conversation between all of us, I didn't dig around for the specifics
that were cited by Nissan, but the gist was that they still wanted to
be in the truck market, but were abandoning their own efforts due to
the fact they simply couldn't get it right.

Perhaps this is why:

http://tinyurl.com/4smh9u

Pretty ugly scores for a truck that has been in manufacture for some
time now, certainly long enough to get the kinks out of design and
manufacture.

Interesting too, is that not only will the Titan be built along side
the Dodge trucks, but they will drop their own engineering and design
for the structure/frame, power train, engine, and finish options.
However, Nissan assures it loyal few that "above the frame" it will be
Nissan engineered.

> Unless you use the truck as a car office and do mostly office work as
> crew chief or similar, the truck is a "get you there" to go _to_ the job
> along w/ the stuff required to do the job. If it is that kind of use,
> perhaps amenities are worth the premium; they're surely not for me.
My truck has to do it all. It has to function as an office when I am
paying my guys, and a comfortable venue for negotiation with
subcontractors. I write and negotiate with subs on the spot as needed
in the air conditioned comfort of the truck.

It has to look nice enough to drive to the house of a client, nice
enough for them to believe they are getting someone that is successful
at what they do. As for the amenities, you got me. I like air
conditioning. After working in our South Texas heat for several hours
or a day, it is nice to get in the truck and crank it up.

The truck has to take me and my tools to the job as I am a hands on
guy most of the time. It hauls shingles, plywood, paint, lumber, job
site debris, compressors, large tools, smelly/sweaty men (including
me!) as needed.

But it needs to cast the appearance of some level of success when I
drive up to a potential client's home, beyond one of that appearance
being cast by a 20 year old truck that is "dependable".
My personal sales persona is not that of the humble craftsman that is
grateful to have work.

> It comes back to is it a "real" work truck or a car that has some
> carrying capacity?

OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all
day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back
seats.

I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton
with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a
rhino with that thing.

#2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual
transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded
onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat,
short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool
boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.

You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the
tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same
time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the
interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped
cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.

The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I
didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as
my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did
everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.

Those were the days.

Robert

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

28/08/2008 10:22 PM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not true. If it has been damaged more than some percentage of its
> value (depends on state, but is ueuslly quite low 5% where I was at
> the time, IIRC), it cannot be sold as new. It must be sold as
> rebuilt.
>
>> Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance company
>> will
>> total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a
>> lot
>> of repaired damage is not going to sell.
>
> If it's not disclosed, it may. :-(

If the dealer wants to get paid for the repair it would be disclosed.

>
>> Vehicles are damaged on the lot on a daily basis, nothing new there.
>
>>
>> Yes the damage has to be disclosed but they can be sold as new, at least
>> in
>> Texas.
>
> It sure can't in most states.

I am sure you are right as I recall the there are often warnings on the
local news after a flood in other states to be leery of new cars being sold
as new. Vehicles involved in floods with water over the bottom of the dash
will forever be problematic.

Typically if the vehicle was a factory damaged problem or one where the
transportation company was liable the factory would arrange to buy back the
vehicle and donate it to a local trade school. Other than that in Texas, an
issued title is all that makes a vehicle used.

nn

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 12:05 PM

On Aug 23, 9:20 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, before dpb jumps on this, the Tundra gets 20 MPG, not mph, on the
> highway, it'll go pretty fast on the highway also. LOL

Pretty funny. I missed it in the post.

Seriously though, how much gear do you carry in your truck to get that
kind of mileage?

Robert

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 4:26 PM


"Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I doubt it.. There isn't a lot design changes you
> could make to a fence.
>
> Since Delta owns both, why change such a successful product ?



I think a track for a feather board would be a nice improvement and or a way
to keep the far end of the fence down to make a feather board applying
downward pressure more effective.

TG

"Tom G"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 3:23 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
>> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
>> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>>
>> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
>> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
>> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
>> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
>> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
>> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>>
>> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
>> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
>> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
>> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>
>> Wish I could be there to see it. I passed on IWF this year, it
>> conflicting with a fishing/scalloping trip planned some time ago and
>> it looks like TS Fay is going to wipe out that alternative.
>>
>> Frank
>
> Sounds like a Harley come back story revisited. Let's hope that they are
> as successful.
>
Interesting story on NBC news last night. Seems that Chinese manufacturing
is in trouble. They estimate that 30 percent of the factories in one
province will shutter their doors in the next year. As one Chinese
interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore". Labor laws in China
have doubled the minimum wage in the last year or so. Many companies are
moving their manufacturing sites to Vietnam and Indonesia as a result.

Tom G.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 10:47 PM


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:25de507d-95bf-4962-bbcf-42606132589e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 22, 8:04 am, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
>> Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.
>
> Leon, as you know, Tundras are made about 25 minutes from my house
> here in sunny San Antonio.
>
> Setting aside the time honored tradition of debate of who makes the
> best truck, I thought I would give you a look at what happened to
> their on a local level.
>
> They shot themselves in the foot straight away by assuming that San
> Antonians would immediately park all other trucks and start driving
> Toyotas. So they made sure from the much ballyhooed opening of the
> plant that San Antonio was full of brand new Tundras.

I'll agree that the Tundra is more expensive, I paid $5000 more for a
similiarly equipped model as the GMC and I will have to say that I did not
even care for the looks of the Tundra. But then I drove one after driving a
Chevrolet and GMC. Comfort plays a major factor in what I buy. We very
often use the 4 doors for friends and other family members. The GM vehicles
still require the back seat riders to sit at a 90 degree angle and the back
doors move and shift enough that the driver can see that movement with a
simple quick glance while driving.


>
> Immediately, thanks to a new tool called "the internet", it was found
> that you could purchase a Tundra in Houston or Dallas substantially
> (according to our local news rag about 15% - 20%!!) cheaper without
> any type of rebate, deal, cash back or anything else from the dealer.
> All of those things were added in later no matter where you bought it.

I suspect theat Gulf States Toyota may be more to blame for this.

>
> Subsequent queries on "the internet" using buying services proved that
> indeed buying out of San Antonio significantly cheaper than buying in
> San Antonio. So mistake up #1 was trying to screw the local
> populace. Think about it; how could it be cheaper to buy the same
> truck that had to be freighted to Dallas in Dallas, rather than one
> that was literally taken 20 minutes to the dealership?

Strange isn't it. By the same token how can I buy gasoline cheaper 85 miles
west of Houston than in Houston?

>
> The local newspaper made a real stink about it, and the local
> dealerships were caught with their pants down as they obviously
> thougtht they were going to be part of the price bonanza.
>
> The second big mistake was to think that folks would pay the
> difference. Sure, the Toyota is probably a better truck. But when I
> was thinking of a new purchase about '07, the difference in price was
> substantial. The new Ford would have cost me (after considerable
> teeth gnashing negotiations) around $24K. But the new San Antonio
> built Tundra would have been $34,900, with no negotiations.

I can see your point. It's too bad you were/are not afforded the same
opportunity. Mine stickered with TTL drive out for about $35k, I drove out
for $28k less trade in. The GMC was quoted at $23k less trade in. After
driving the GMC and Chevy I did not want to buy a new truck. That changed
after driving the Tundra. After having GMC and Chevy trucks that I was
happy with the $5k more for the Tundra seemed well worth the extra
investment for me.


>
> That's 30 f'ing percent difference!!

I hear you and don't blame you at all under those circumstances.

>
> Add in the financing on that difference, and it will knock you over.

Yeah, I gave up financing some years back, tooo expensive.


>
> There is also a perception here and in the surrounding areas that if
> you have a problem with your Ford, GM or Dodge truck that if you need
> parts in an emergency, you can find them cheaper and easier than if
> you are looking for
> parts for a Nissan or Toyota.

Well in defence of the imports you mention here, I'll mention again that I
made my living and retired after exclusively selling GM products and parts
for 18 years. You find parts for Ford, GM, and Dodge because they sell real
well, Why? They have a high failure rate. Why do you have to order
Toyota parts? Because they dont fail very often. A dealer or auto parts
store makes money on parts that sell over and over. My criteria for
stocking a part for GM at the dealership was to put it in inventory if it
sold 2 times in 3 months and that is being very pickey about when to stock a
part. The vast makority of parts that I stocked sold at least once a week
on average, many of those parts were several times a day and those were not
maintence parts.
When I still worked for the Olds dealer there was a Toyota dealer next door.
Our warranty parts pile waiting for the Olds servive rep to scrap varied
from 200 to 400 parts monthly. The Toyota dealer typically and 4 or 5 parts
by compairison.
I'll totally agree that American brand parts are easier to find but in
general that is not actually a good thing for all the customers.
When I was the GM for an AC/Delco wholesaler our only customers were GM
dealers and a majority of those customers were in Houston. We probably only
had 75 customers total and we absolutely refused to sell to any one unless
they were a GM dealership. We stocked alternators, starters, and AC
compressors by the thousands in only about 75 different part numbers total.
We turned that inventory 6 to 8 times a year. Basically our better
customers would buy 10-15 of one part number alternator on a weekly basis.
A mix of 45 to 60 alternators weekly to the same customer was normal.
I also was over an Isuzu parts department during the same time I was at the
Olds dealership. We stocked no starters or alternators at all, and sold 2
or 3 a year.


>
> I would think that probably a large part of San Antonians are blue
> collar, and certainly a lot of folks I know are. They work on their
> own vehicles if at all possible. So if your starter or alternator
> goes out on Sunday, it is nice to be able to go to the local auto
> parts store and pick one up for a couple of hundred dollars and put it
> on. Much better than waiting at the Toyota dealership for a $400+
> starter on Monday and missing a day of work after the purchase to
> install it.

True. But my 97 Chevy had to have 2 water pumps, 2 intake manifold gaskets,
1 alternator, 1 wiper circuit board, 3 upper heater hose assy's, 2 AC blower
motors, and both tail light circuit boards replaced in 10 years/80K miles.
And I thought that was pretty trouble free for a GM vehicle. Don't get me
started on when I was the service sales manager for Oldsmobile....



>
> Next, the Toyota guys admitted that they needed more offerings to take
> on the local truck market. They brazenly bragged that they would take
> over the truck market in Texas now that they had trucks made here.

That seems to be working pretty well in Houston but being built in Texas
probably does not really matter, not all of them are built in Texas.


> But (mistake #3), they made no "work truck" available.

True

>
> Most of us tooling around in our trucks don't need leather interiors,
> a six banger CD casette changer, remote starter/kill switch, dual
> climate controls, GPS navigation, 2 power points, deluxe wheel
> packages and fancy, eye catching metalized plastic knobs and plastic
> wood on the interiors.
>
> So after these missteps, where did that leave Toyota? Last year,
> after only being open for one, they "retooled" and came up with a less
> well appointed truck. But since the idea was already in the heads of
> most that they were too expensive, it was too late to save the
> downward spiral.

I can certainly see that happening.


>
> So at the first of this year, they announced that sales were
> "disappointing", and canceled the planned plant expansion that was to
> take place to cover all the orders they had expected and taken for
> granted would happen.

I'm betting the economy in general is affecting sales more than anything.



>
> Then they dropped their prices to be more in line with the rest of the
> market. Things didn't get better as their is now a perception that
> there was some "friggin' in the riggin" " and that lowering their
> prices as much as they have was the same as admitting they were trying
> to screw folks.

That would appear sto be ture... I recall VW dropping the prices of their
cars several thousand dollars when their new models came out. That left a
bad taste in the previous model owners mouths.

>
> Then they got caught in the same hole as every other manufacturer.
> They have had a couple of recalls that didn't set well, and there
> have been some mechanical problems that have caused some of the
> truck's mechanics to be redesigned. (One of the problems for Toyota
> is that being local, if the paint chips on a truck the local "news
> defenders" send a team out to the plant to see of it is a trend.)

And probably more recalls than you will ever know. Most manufacturers will
perform recalls that may not be announced, usually done when yo come in for
ohter warranty work or for normal service. I recall the Ford Focus having
in excess of 100 before the car was even sold during it's first year of
production.


>
> But now... to compound things they are trapped in the same stale
> market as everyone else in the car industry. They laid off a couple
> of hundred workers last month, and the plant has been shuttered since
> the first of August and will be until the first of October. Closed.
> Period. No work.
>
> To their great credit, Toyota has seen fit to pay their workers FULL
> wages while sorting this out. It isn't altogether an altruistic favor
> on the part of Toyota; they have many thousands of dollars in training
> even the workers with even the most mundane jobs.
>
> It is an interesting, ongoing soap opera here. Toyota isn't going
> anywhere. But lessons were learned the hard way, just like at GM,
> Ford, etc. The public will eventually get what they want. You can
> now buy a Tundra work type truck, for just a smidge over the Fords and
> Chevys.


>
> But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
> the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
> American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
> don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
> with the lowly public consumer.
>
> With that in mind, it will be interesting to see their next move.
>
> Just a few thoughts...
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>

PB

Pat Barber

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 6:54 PM

I doubt it.. There isn't a lot design changes you
could make to a fence.

Since Delta owns both, why change such a successful product ?


Leon wrote:
> "John Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editorsblog&entry=291
>>>
>>>
>> Did you note the comment that the only thing the new saw has in common
>> with the classic Unisaw is its name.
>
>
> I did, I wonder if the Beismeyer and or Unifence is gone.
>
>

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 3:24 PM

Pat Barber wrote:
> I doubt it.. There isn't a lot design changes you
> could make to a fence.
>
> Since Delta owns both, why change such a successful product ?
>
>
> Leon wrote:
>> "John Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editorsblog&entry=291
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did you note the comment that the only thing the new saw has in
>>> common with the classic Unisaw is its name.
>>
>>
>> I did, I wonder if the Beismeyer and or Unifence is gone.

The one on the saw in the video looks a lot like a Bies.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 5:01 PM

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Frank Boettcher" wrote:
>
>> They went away from the original business model which was to
>> acquire
>> underperforming companies with great names, leave them autonomous
>> and
>> give local management the support to do what needed to be done.
>
> Back in the early 60s, a guy named Tinkham Veal, a Clevelander,
> formed
> Alco Standard, basically a holding company.
>
> Aimed at the sole proprietor of a $3-$5Meg business..
>
> The idea was that Alco would provide all of the overhead services
> such
> as human services, legal, etc, thus freeing up time to concentrate
> on
> growing the business.
>
> In return, the sole proprietor would exchange their stock for Alco
> stock
>
> Was successful back then, have no idea where things stand today.

It turned into IKON Office Solutions. 8 of the subsidiaries bought
themselves out and formed Alco Industries, based in Norristown, PA.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 12:45 PM

Leon wrote:
...
> ... The Tundra
> was $5,000 more than the GMC and I had no problem with paying the
> difference. The Toyota ride and feel was that much better.
>
> Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.
...

For a truck to use as a real truck I see no advantage whatsoever in the
Tundra. AFAIK still no diesel available(?), higher price, lower
payload, and at least here the resale value is, if not terrible, not
good (worse than Ford, even)...

Dodge is by far top farm truck locally, followed by Chevy. Ford is tops
in the oil patch fleets by a (relatively slim) margin over Chevy. Dodge
hasn't made inroads there for some reason in the fleet sales.

I've stayed w/ Chevy simply because everything we've ever had has been a
Chevy going back to the '28 I learned to drive in (and which we used
daily as a feed wagon until the late '50s) and consequently know the
dealership so thoroughly there's no reason to switch. I'm sure could
get by w/ the Tundra (the same dealership also has Toyota but they
outsell the Tundra by >10:1 w/ Chevy for work-oriented trucks according
to Pete). Their Toyota auto says are about even w/ GM products, however.

--

cc

"charlie"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:26 AM


"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Toyota now has the Tundra looking SUV but if you want smaller the
>> Pathfinder should fill the bill.
>
> They also make the 4Runner, based on the Tacoma.

i have a 90 4runner, purchased new in 89. 160k miles. i can fit 4x8 plywood
in it flat, with about 2' hanging over the downed tailgate. i've spent
(maybe) $2k for repairs on it besides routine maintenance. it is truly a
rock.

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 1:24 PM

Leon wrote:
...
> I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston the
> ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's than you
> see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.

I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 2:04 PM

[email protected] wrote:
...
> But now they are all rowing the same boat, and folks around here in
> the trades are going with what they know, which is the big three
> American brands. There are no Toyota fleet trucks around here. I
> don't even know a company that buys them. So that leaves Toyota back
> with the lowly public consumer.
...
That jibes w/ what I observe in farm country w/ oil as the secondary
industry use. I've not seen a single Halliburton, Schlumberger, Best,
or any other service or pipeline vehicle other than the Big 3.

Last time there was even one on the lot in town it was still at least
20% list above GM product and as noted, it was in the pimped out version.

The lack of the diesel really hurt them here where the amount of heavy
towing is quite high -- if not large stock/horse trailers, anhydrous
ammonia tanks into soft, sandy fields take torque and lugging power.

There are a few I know who use them to take the dogs out for pheasant
hunting, but that's about as rugged a use as they get. That's not
"work" in my way of thinking...well it's work, but not for the truck. :)

--
--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:07 PM

Leon wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>> I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston
>>> the ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's
>>> than you see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.
>> I doubt a tenth of them are "real work" work trucks...
>>
>> --
>
> Regarardless Tim needs a vehicle to haul stuff that a SUV will take care
> off, no need for balls to the walls torque and power. It is more a question
> to which is the better vehicle for the money.

In that case there's absolutely no question in my mind the Tacoma is
overpriced. For that a purpose a Ford Econoline would do.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 8:31 AM

Leon wrote:
...
> Yeah'but then you would be driving a ford.

Far more economical, even if a Ford...and it wouldn't be me... :)

--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 8:55 AM

[email protected] wrote:
...
> ...the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
> were so needed.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. They're needed because
there are so many vehicles in service. They're cheap(er) because there
is volume...chicken/egg.
...

> leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
> truck, but their repair record scared me off.

The thing is, this is more perception than reality. There are problems
in all vehicles; you don't hear about them in the foreigns particularly
in trucks more because there simply aren't as many.

Since the mid-70s/80s period, I really do not believe there's a
significant overall difference. We use trucks _hard_ and simply do not
have the kinds of complaints Leon makes. A/C in the '78 still is cold
w/ never a service. One water pump on six vehicles that I can recall
since sometime back in the early 80's. No transmissions, starters,
engines, ever going back to the '58. (Although I did rebuild the '72 at
around 200k as choice personal truck but it was still running at the
time and could have gone quite bit longer before it was required. It's
still in service w/ a plumber friend who has had no maintenance since
gave it to him in '99.)

> I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
> well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
> small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
> looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
> Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
> lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
> wagon.

Unless you use the truck as a car office and do mostly office work as
crew chief or similar, the truck is a "get you there" to go _to_ the job
along w/ the stuff required to do the job. If it is that kind of use,
perhaps amenities are worth the premium; they're surely not for me. The
quiet lasts for a little while but rough gravel roads soon loosen up
_any_ frame no matter how tight it is initially and the fancy interior
gets as dirty as does the plain from road and field and grain dust,
cattle and so on.

It comes back to is it a "real" work truck or a car that has some
carrying capacity? I agree the Tundra seems to be pretty well made as
well but they don't deserve the premium. For our application the lack
of the diesel pretty much relegates them to the sidelines anyway...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 10:26 AM

Leon wrote:
...
> That is not entirely ture. ...

But it is...it'll take tens of years before a slight outselling of the
Big 3 (and I still don't think they're outselling them in full-size
truck market--they simply don't have the model numbers available to do
so) will even come close to catching up to the volume on the road.

The dynamics aren't the same as for the automobile end at all.

As for the smaller market dynamics (which I am in, thankfully), there's
a little bit of truth there, but there has been a Toyota dealer as well
for quite a lot of time (as noted, it's also the Chevy dealership).

The fact is, the demand here for work trucks is for hard-working work
trucks (which is what I've focused on as that seemed to be the area of
interest I thought until the sidelight of the SUV came up) and the lower
payload, no better or worse mileage ratings and particularly the
no-diesel option really limits the "likeability" of the Tundra for that
market. They sell a decent number all pimped out for the hunters and
the in-town folks who want a car that can carry something, but that's a
different market. I still expect that that's the major market in
Houston you're seeing as well--most of them will be traded in and still
not have a scratch in the bed.

On the reliability of the Big 3, it's much like much of the other
reporting these days. There was a period of some serious problems and
that has now become legend and is reported as though nothing has changed
since the mid-70s. The difficulty of regaining a lost reputation is
legend in any arena and is no different for the automakers than an
individual. They're just not getting any favors and imo much undeserved
bad press and continued bashing from general folks who just do so
because it's "the in thing" rather than real knowledge/experience.

You have experience, but even much of your anecdotes are somewhat dated
and not directly reflective of current state of affairs.

The Chevy shop here is generally half empty these days--there just
aren't enough vehicles to repair, warranty or otherwise. I have a
Chrysler 300 as well as the GM products and the Chrysler/Dodge dealer is
probably the largest in town (owing in large part to the popularity of
the Ram) and yet it's not difficult to get in to their service area,
either, even though they've not added personnel for years and their
sales have mushroomed.

--


--
--

dn

dpb

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 12:58 PM

Leon wrote:
...
> Well, in defense of the new Tundra, time will tell.

Clearly... :)

I'm not saying they're a _bad_ truck, just pricey and have some
drawbacks as well as strong points (as does every other one)...

--

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 2:48 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom G wrote:
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
>>>> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
>>>> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>>>>
>>>> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
>>>> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
>>>> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
>>>> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
>>>> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
>>>> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>>>>
>>>> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
>>>> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
>>>> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
>>>> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
>>>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
>>>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>> Wish I could be there to see it. I passed on IWF this year, it
>>>> conflicting with a fishing/scalloping trip planned some time ago and
>>>> it looks like TS Fay is going to wipe out that alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>> Sounds like a Harley come back story revisited. Let's hope that they are
>>> as successful.
>>>
>> Interesting story on NBC news last night. Seems that Chinese manufacturing
>> is in trouble. They estimate that 30 percent of the factories in one
>> province will shutter their doors in the next year. As one Chinese
>> interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore". Labor laws in China
>> have doubled the minimum wage in the last year or so. Many companies are
>> moving their manufacturing sites to Vietnam and Indonesia as a result.
>>
>> Tom G.
>>
>>
>
>Wow, what a shock, free markets actually work??? The anti-globalist,
>anti-trade sentiment one frequently hears (especially here) is
>foolish. The Chinese/Indian/Sri Lankan/Taiwanese... "cheap" labor
>advantage was/is temporary. As these nations continue to participate
>in global markets and thereby become more wealthy, their average
>salaries will - in currency adjusted terms - start to converge to be
>around the same as everyone else's. Sooner or later, people working in
>market economies want the same things the wealthy Westerners do - a
>nice car, a house, air conditioning, an education, etc. Wage inflation
>has already hit Indian IT outsourcing and it is inevitable in China's
>manufacturing sector. The only thing that can stop it is violent
>suppression by their government (possible) or an invasion by a foreign
>power (unlikely).

Tim, I agree in principle but the reality is it is very difficult to
bring anything back. When a successful and efficient manufacturing
facility is closed in favor of moving offshore, many times the state
of depreciation expense amortization and the present value of the
tooling is such that, if lost, it is rare to be able of afford to come
back, at least within a generation.

I was successful for many reasons. Well trained and efficient work
force, reasonable labor costs, good supply chain management, great
imbedded product knowledge, and a very reasonable depreciation expense
component of the overhead. If closed and all lost or made obselete,
the cost of retooling and equiping would cause depreciation expense to
be about four times what it was. That alone would put me out of the
running not to mention the impact of the lost imbedded knowledge.

So maybe in another generation that equilibrium you describe will be a
reality. In the meantime, I hope this Delta initiative will be a
success.

And I agree with your statement below about buying quality and value.
Quality is a component of value.

>
>Trade not only benefits these people, it also makes nations more
>interdependent and thus less likely to go to war or otherwise behave
>in naughty and violent ways. Yet somehow, it is Westerners - the very
>biggest beneficiaries of trade - that lead the whining chorus in
>opposition to globalism and markets. Astonishing (and depressing).
>
>One common example of this whining is the insistence that you only
>"Buy American" regardless of how good a value an offshore product
>might be. I prefer to buy *quality and value*. Sometimes that's an
>American product, but not always. Sometimes even the better American
>product has so much protectionist goo around it that buying it may be
>a mistake. For instance, GM and the execrable UAW are discovering just
>how bad the pain can be when you cease participating in fair markets
>and hide behind union restraint-of-trade. This makes me disinclined
>to buy another Chevy truck when I wonder if the company can even
>survive as its unions bleed it to death. As always, Reality trumps
>collectivist fantasy...
>
>If you want more peace, slower population growth, better environmental
>conditions, better work conditions, fewer poor people, and more good
>things for more people, become a market Capitalist. If you hate your
>fellow man, subscribe to limited trade, central government control,
>tariffs, and "managed" economies.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 9:51 AM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
>> ...the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
>> were so needed.
>
> It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. They're needed because there
> are so many vehicles in service. They're cheap(er) because there is
> volume...chicken/egg.

Both ture observations.



> ...
>
>> leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
>> truck, but their repair record scared me off.
>
> The thing is, this is more perception than reality. There are problems in
> all vehicles; you don't hear about them in the foreigns particularly in
> trucks more because there simply aren't as many.

That is not entirely ture. I live in Houston and have done so since the
early 70's. Most every vehicle is available here and seen on a daily basis
including Ferrari. Because Houston is still growing there is opportunity
for more and more dealerships. If you live in a city or small town that is
not growing rapidly the opportunity to add another sucessful dealership is
limited. Because vehicles are major investments a new model is not usually
purchased on a whim and the customer is more comfortable with what he knows.
Typically GM, Ford, and Dodge have been around for a very long time in any
decent sized town. In the 70's you did not see as many imports in Houston
as you do now. I dont exagerate when I say that half or more vehicles on
the road are Japanese and that trend is growing. The clostest Toyota
dealership to me is my far busier in the service department than probably
the largest Chevy dealer ship in the country where my son works part time.
And don't equate that to a lack of reliabibliy. The majority of traffic in
the Toyota service department is for the quick lube center which also
rotates and balances tires, and changes batteries.
YES all vehicles have problems and yes you typically only hear about the
ones with problems. You more often hear about problems than you do
reliability. When I worked for the GM dealership the shop was the money
maker, dealers bought franchises so that they could sell a product that was
going to need to be serviced. Oldsmobile warranty work was our most
frequent customer by a huge percentage and yes dealerships are credited for
the warranty work that they perform. Warranty work is an easy sale, the
customer does not have to authorize the work therefore warranty work is a
major income segment in the service department. There is a problem with
that however, warranty work was/is often troublesome to diagnose and does
not return as much profit as does regular non warranty repair work.
Absolutely the best most profitable work is routine maintence work. There
is no lost time in diagnosis and typically the customer knows what he needs
to have done before he gets there. You do not have to call him back to tell
him what it will cost and get authorization to perform the work. The
Japanese auto makers seem to have recognise these facts and reliability is
probably why Toyota has become one of the Big 3.




TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 1:14 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:15 am, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Alas, Tim, the world is not quite so black and white as you see it.
>> ...
>>> .... For example, my first passion in
>>> life is not woodworking but traditional B&W silver chemical photography.
>>> My field camera is a hand made wooden box (Honduran quarter sawn mahogany and
>>> shiny brass) that I paid a *lot* for. Why? Because it is a superbly
>>> executed instrument that nothing else can touch in its class. It does
>>> thing that *no* digital camera, at any price can do (including the
>>> $40K Hasselblad H-39). The manufacturer, Wisner, has a nice little
>>> high end business, building the "best" of something for people who
>>> know the difference. ...
>
> He didn't say he SEES it that way.
>
> He said he PHOTOGRAPHS it that way...
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>

More precisely, my nice B&W film and paper see it that way ;)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 6:32 AM

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:47:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:24:45 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Frank Boettcher" wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it makes me feel good to see
>>>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it
>>>> where
>>>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>>>
>>>Near as I can tell, about the only thing Pentair didn't totally screw
>>>up was Hoffman electrical enclosures.
>>>
>>>Lew
>>>
>> Lew, Pentair is doing much better in the business they chose to remain
>> in that is the water business and the enclosure business. These fit
>> their business model a little better. Consolidation and globalization
>> work a lot better when globalization does not just mean send
>> everything to China, but, actually develop markets outside the U. S.
>> Those two groups are also more industrial and infrastructure related
>> and less retail in nature, unlike the tool group and the vehicle
>> service equipment group, both of which they ruined trying to apply a
>> business model that had no chance of working.
>>
>> They went away from the original business model which was to acquire
>> underperforming companies with great names, leave them autonomous and
>> give local management the support to do what needed to be done. The
>> current management wants, it seems, to turn it into a G. E. on a
>> smaller scale. Not surprised at this, the current CEO is both ex G.
>> E. and ex McKinsey.
>>
>> I think they will do well in the future, with most of the growth from
>> markets in Europe and Aisa, although one component of the business is
>> pool and spa which has been really negatively affected by the housing
>> downturn. If you can anticipate the timing of that turning around, it
>> would be a good stock to buy at that point. (disclosure, I own it).
>>
>
> Their stock prices haven't done well for quite some time. They were going
>pretty well when they had Delta, afterwards, they lost a significant amount
>of value and have been hovering in the $34 to $37 range, off from highs in
>the low 40's.


The tool group was the top performing business that they owned until
they embarked on the disasterous consolidation strategy in 2000.
Measuring the key components ROS, ROIC, cash flow, organic growth, the
tool group was an extremely high performing business.

Then they decided to kill the goose to look for the gold.......

The present value of the equity loss will never be recovered, but I
believe there have been and will be entry points that will be
attractive going forward. Additionally, there is always that "teaser"
thrown out by analysts that they are a prime candidate to be bought by
someone bigger. The recent joint venture with G. E. rekindled that
dream.

Dividend is steady at just about 2% and most analyst have them at a
hold or better.

Frank

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 6:30 PM


"Leon" wrote:

> If quality is better sales should be OK. Festool is expensive and
> doing well. Consumers are willing to pay extra for quality but not
> extra and lower quality.


There was a time, before automobiles, when that market segment was
known as the "Carriage Trade".

Lew

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 8:04 AM


"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Renata wrote:
Snip


> I don't claim the world is that binary. But markets have a funny
> way of punishing stupidity and sloth. I am currently in the market
> to replace my old Chevy truck. Chevy is begging for my business
> with unbelievable rebates. The problem? I don't know if they
> can survive long enough to support the warranty period, let along
> the very long run I tend to own a vehicle. I think I am buying
> a Japanese product. This is the market doing its job. Perhaps
> someday, the UAW worker who is getting full wages and benefits without
> having worked for years may get clued in their that their avarice
> destroyed a national institution. Then again... perhaps not.

I worked for GM dealerships, and sold wholesale GM parts for many years. I
have owned 2 GM trucks and my 3rd truck is an 07 Toyota Tundra. I started
out with appointments to drive GMC, Chev, and Toyota. I was so disappointed
in the GM products ride quality and feel that I almost said I'll wait a few
more years. The local GMC dealer called me at home after my first visit and
offered me an "extremely" good deal on the truck I wanted and a good trade
in price on my 97 Chevy PU. IIRC $18,000 drive out. I drove the GMC
trucks again and went to the Toyota dealer and drove the Tundra. The Tundra
was $5,000 more than the GMC and I had no problem with paying the
difference. The Toyota ride and feel was that much better.

Do yourself a favor and at least test drive the Tundra.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

27/08/2008 7:31 PM

Wording is everything, isn't it? I took this question and answer from the
site link you provided.

Question: Could using a 5W-30, 10W-30, 0W-30 or even a 10W-40 or 20W-50, oil
in my vehicle which specifies a 5W-20 oil void my new car warranty?

Answer: Absolutely not. Vehicle manufacturers only recommend using motor
oils meeting certain viscosity grades and American Petroleum Institute
service requirements. Whether a motor oil is a 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, 0W-30,
10W-40 or 20W-50 (for racing and high performance applications in, for
example, a Cobra R Mustang) or even a synthetic vs. a petroleum based oil
will not affect warranty coverage. The manufacturer is required by Federal
Law to cover all equipment failures it would normally cover as long as the
oil meets API service requirements and specifications and was not the cause
of failure. In addition, the Federally mandated Magnuson - Moss Act states
that a manufacturer may not require a specific brand or type of aftermarket
product unless it is provided free of charge. If your dealership continues
to tell you that you must use 5W-20 motor oil and or/ a specific brand of
5W-20 motor oil, then ask them to put it in writing. Their position is
inaccurate, and, in fact violates existing law.*



Was I the only one to notice that above is stated,

The manufacturer is required by Federal Law to cover all equipment failures
it would normally cover as long as the oil meets API service requirements
and specifications and was not the cause of failure.

Key words here, "and was not the cause of failure".

So as I read this the manufacturer can indeed refuse to repair an engine
that was not running the specified oil even though the oil met "API service
requirements and specifications". If the oil was the cause of the failure
you are left holding the bag.

That said however the question was asked in such a way as to confuse the
issue. True, if you use a different oil than the manufacturer asks you to
use they still have to warrant the AC system, or paint, or electrical
switches but not an engine failure caused by an non specified oil.

















"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2L%sk.887$w51.156@trnddc01...
> See:
>
> http://www.smartsynthetics.com/articles/5w20oil.htm
>
> "The main reason 5W-20 or 0W-20 oil was specified for your engine is to
> increase the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) reported to the Federal
> Government. CAFE is the combined average fuel economy of all of a vehicle
> manufacturers product line. Minimum CAFE levels are specified by the
> Federal Government. In order for a vehicle manufacturer to continue
> selling profitable large trucks and SUV's, which typically have poor fuel
> mileage ratings, as compared to smaller cars, and still meet mandated CAFE
> requirements, they must also sell enough of the smaller cars which have
> much better fuel economy ratings to offset the poor fuel economy ratings
> of the larger vehicles. For model year 2001, the change to a 5W-20 oil
> will allow Honda and Ford's overall CAFE to increase by a very small
> amount, typically in the tenths of a mile per gallon range. 5W-20 oil is a
> lighter viscosity than a 5W-30 oil and therefore has less internal engine
> frictional losses, or less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valve
> train, which in turn promotes increased fuel economy. This increased fuel
> economy is virtually undetectable to the average motorist without the use
> of specialized engine monitoring and testing equipment under strictly
> controlled test track driving when compared to a 5W-30, 10W-30 or a 0W-30
> viscosity motor oil. "
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> [email protected]

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 1:13 PM


"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> krw <[email protected]> writes:
>>In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
>>[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>says...
>>> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage
>>> > from
>>> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>>>
>>> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
>>> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
>>
>>My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
>>Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
>>to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
>>My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
>>thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
>
> My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
> 25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
> which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.
>
> ('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)
>
> scot

By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter
and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage
could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an
85 or lower rating.



Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

25/08/2008 11:03 PM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage
>> > from
>> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>>
>> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
>> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
>
> I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a
> look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut?
> ;-)


Uh no, it did not come with that walnut. ;~)

Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp
and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media"
has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine
will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning
premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less
than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels
tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 8:54 AM


"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>
> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>
> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>
> Wish I could be there to see it. I passed on IWF this year, it
> conflicting with a fishing/scalloping trip planned some time ago and
> it looks like TS Fay is going to wipe out that alternative.
>
> Frank

Sounds like a Harley come back story revisited. Let's hope that they are as
successful.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

30/08/2008 9:25 AM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> He didn't get paid because he slid it under the rug. He *HAD* to,
>> or he would have been stuck with a "rebuilt" vehicle with zero miles
>> on it. They usually don't have insurance against such things either
>> (thou$and$ in deductibles).
>
>
> He got paid. I got paid. The used vehicle status does not apply in Texas
> simply because you replace a part.
>

Just to take this a bit further, deductibles are not that big of a concern
to dealer after a certain point. Insurance pays full price for repair less
their little discount. This price is still most often more than the dealer
cost even after the deductible is taken out. Because the price that the
dealer collects less the deductible from the insurance company, he still
shows a profit. For example, the deductible is $1,000. Lets say the lot
lizard is parking the vehicle in a row of tightly arranged vehicles. His
front bumper hit the car nest to his parking spot very lightly and put a
crease across the front of the quarter panel, rear door skin, front door
skin and the back of the fender. All of those pieces can be repaired more
cheaply than replacement except for the fender. Seriously the damage is
mostly cosmetic but the repair bill is going to be $2500, less the typical
10% "on parts" for the insurance company less a $1000 deductible. The
fender is the only part being replaced at retail price of $600.. The
insurance company pays $2500 less $60 discount on the parts, less $1000 for
the deductible. The dealer collects $1440. The fender cost is $300, the
dealer internal labor cost is 22 hours at $20 per hour paid to his body men
and painters, the body repair and paint materials cost is $300. This all
comes to a total of $1040. The dealer makes $400.
You have to remember that insurance companies pay retail less the typical
discount of 10% on parts. The dealer has the advantage of doing the repair
at his cost and not paying retail pricing. Body work is a high percentage
profit, money making business. The dealer discloses that there was cosmetic
damage on the car and typically says that he will stand behind the repair as
long as the customer owns the vehicle.

TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 3:11 PM

Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
<SNIP>

>>>
>> Wow, what a shock, free markets actually work??? The anti-globalist,
>> anti-trade sentiment one frequently hears (especially here) is
>> foolish. The Chinese/Indian/Sri Lankan/Taiwanese... "cheap" labor
>> advantage was/is temporary. As these nations continue to participate
>> in global markets and thereby become more wealthy, their average
>> salaries will - in currency adjusted terms - start to converge to be
>> around the same as everyone else's. Sooner or later, people working in
>> market economies want the same things the wealthy Westerners do - a
>> nice car, a house, air conditioning, an education, etc. Wage inflation
>> has already hit Indian IT outsourcing and it is inevitable in China's
>> manufacturing sector. The only thing that can stop it is violent
>> suppression by their government (possible) or an invasion by a foreign
>> power (unlikely).
>
> Tim, I agree in principle but the reality is it is very difficult to
> bring anything back. When a successful and efficient manufacturing
> facility is closed in favor of moving offshore, many times the state
> of depreciation expense amortization and the present value of the
> tooling is such that, if lost, it is rare to be able of afford to come
> back, at least within a generation.
>
> I was successful for many reasons. Well trained and efficient work
> force, reasonable labor costs, good supply chain management, great
> imbedded product knowledge, and a very reasonable depreciation expense
> component of the overhead. If closed and all lost or made obselete,
> the cost of retooling and equiping would cause depreciation expense to
> be about four times what it was. That alone would put me out of the
> running not to mention the impact of the lost imbedded knowledge.

That's clearly true. But I'd suggest - at least at the Big Picture level -
that there will always be a demand for high value/quality goods and
people will pay a premium for it. For example, my first passion in
life is not woodworking but traditional B&W silver chemical photography.
My field camera is a hand made wooden box (Honduran quarter sawn mahogany and
shiny brass) that I paid a *lot* for. Why? Because it is a superbly
executed instrument that nothing else can touch in its class. It does
thing that *no* digital camera, at any price can do (including the
$40K Hasselblad H-39). The manufacturer, Wisner, has a nice little
high end business, building the "best" of something for people who
know the difference. So, while mass manufacturing will migrate to
the lowest cost producer (in a commodity market, the lowest cost
producer always win), I believe there will always be room for crafstmen
to make Ferraris, Steinways, and so on.

>
> So maybe in another generation that equilibrium you describe will be a
> reality. In the meantime, I hope this Delta initiative will be a
> success.

I think it is happening already and a lot faster than many people
realize. Indian IT outsourcing is taking a real hit because of
wage inflation. Europeans are starting to build factories
here in the US. For the moment this is because of the Dollar/Euro
ratio. But in the not so distant future I think all this new
technology and the success of global trade and markets is going
to drive work to be done by whoever does it *best* at a fairly
constant (currency adjusted) price. I too hope that Delta succeeds
here, but not because "The flag is back" but because I love seeing
high quality anything being made ... no matter where and by whom.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Tim Daneliuk on 20/08/2008 3:11 PM

26/08/2008 1:18 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:01:38 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific
>purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)
>

LOL, yep could very well be. I guess I made the decision partially
based on MPG and just wanted reassurance that it was the right one.

Frank

TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 1:14 AM

Renata wrote:
> Alas, Tim, the world is not quite so black and white as you see it.
> Everything doesn't have to be either ultra high end or cheap crap.
>
> And, when you're buying something that's supposed to have some fairly
> decent level of quality that no longer does (e.g. Delta, made in
> China), but they still want their premium price (though not the $ of
> the ultra high end stuff, but not cheap), it's problematic.

The market will solve this problem - in the not so long run
people will not pay premium prices for junk.

>
> GMs problems, even from a cursory look-see appear to go well beyond
> those #^%*$ unions.


No - their executives are morons too - but the unions are the
primary problem. Do the math. Look at what the eeeeeeevil
execs have taken out of the company and then the insane payments
the unions have extorted. The exec compensation is rounding error
by comparison.

> We're not living inside a computer w/it's limitations to 1 and 0.


I don't claim the world is that binary. But markets have a funny
way of punishing stupidity and sloth. I am currently in the market
to replace my old Chevy truck. Chevy is begging for my business
with unbelievable rebates. The problem? I don't know if they
can survive long enough to support the warranty period, let along
the very long run I tend to own a vehicle. I think I am buying
a Japanese product. This is the market doing its job. Perhaps
someday, the UAW worker who is getting full wages and benefits without
having worked for years may get clued in their that their avarice
destroyed a national institution. Then again... perhaps not.


> Renata
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:11:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Frank Boettcher wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> Wow, what a shock, free markets actually work??? The anti-globalist,
>>>> anti-trade sentiment one frequently hears (especially here) is
>>>> foolish. The Chinese/Indian/Sri Lankan/Taiwanese... "cheap" labor
>>>> advantage was/is temporary. As these nations continue to participate
>>>> in global markets and thereby become more wealthy, their average
>>>> salaries will - in currency adjusted terms - start to converge to be
>>>> around the same as everyone else's. Sooner or later, people working in
>>>> market economies want the same things the wealthy Westerners do - a
>>>> nice car, a house, air conditioning, an education, etc. Wage inflation
>>>> has already hit Indian IT outsourcing and it is inevitable in China's
>>>> manufacturing sector. The only thing that can stop it is violent
>>>> suppression by their government (possible) or an invasion by a foreign
>>>> power (unlikely).
>>> Tim, I agree in principle but the reality is it is very difficult to
>>> bring anything back. When a successful and efficient manufacturing
>>> facility is closed in favor of moving offshore, many times the state
>>> of depreciation expense amortization and the present value of the
>>> tooling is such that, if lost, it is rare to be able of afford to come
>>> back, at least within a generation.
>>>
>>> I was successful for many reasons. Well trained and efficient work
>>> force, reasonable labor costs, good supply chain management, great
>>> imbedded product knowledge, and a very reasonable depreciation expense
>>> component of the overhead. If closed and all lost or made obselete,
>>> the cost of retooling and equiping would cause depreciation expense to
>>> be about four times what it was. That alone would put me out of the
>>> running not to mention the impact of the lost imbedded knowledge.
>> That's clearly true. But I'd suggest - at least at the Big Picture level -
>> that there will always be a demand for high value/quality goods and
>> people will pay a premium for it. For example, my first passion in
>> life is not woodworking but traditional B&W silver chemical photography.
>> My field camera is a hand made wooden box (Honduran quarter sawn mahogany and
>> shiny brass) that I paid a *lot* for. Why? Because it is a superbly
>> executed instrument that nothing else can touch in its class. It does
>> thing that *no* digital camera, at any price can do (including the
>> $40K Hasselblad H-39). The manufacturer, Wisner, has a nice little
>> high end business, building the "best" of something for people who
>> know the difference. So, while mass manufacturing will migrate to
>> the lowest cost producer (in a commodity market, the lowest cost
>> producer always win), I believe there will always be room for crafstmen
>> to make Ferraris, Steinways, and so on.
>>
>>> So maybe in another generation that equilibrium you describe will be a
>>> reality. In the meantime, I hope this Delta initiative will be a
>>> success.
>> I think it is happening already and a lot faster than many people
>> realize. Indian IT outsourcing is taking a real hit because of
>> wage inflation. Europeans are starting to build factories
>> here in the US. For the moment this is because of the Dollar/Euro
>> ratio. But in the not so distant future I think all this new
>> technology and the success of global trade and markets is going
>> to drive work to be done by whoever does it *best* at a fairly
>> constant (currency adjusted) price. I too hope that Delta succeeds
>> here, but not because "The flag is back" but because I love seeing
>> high quality anything being made ... no matter where and by whom.
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 5:43 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Jz%[email protected]...
>
> "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9c%[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>
>> If you're not already running synthetic oil, DO. You'll not only
>> increase your fuel mileage (one mpg, maybe more) but you'll change oil
>> less often and reduce wear on bearings, rings, valve train and the like.
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm running synthetic, firggen 0W-20 as per Toyota's strong
> recommendation over 5W-20. If it were not synthetic I'd be skerd as heck.


I heard that. When I went to Amsoil's Signature Series 5W30 I watched
the oil pressure gauge drop from just above the half-way mark to about two
needle widths above the quarter mark.

Dave in Houston

TD

Tim Daneliuk

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 1:03 AM

B A R R Y wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Toyota now has the Tundra looking SUV but if you want smaller the
>> Pathfinder should fill the bill.
>
> They also make the 4Runner, based on the Tacoma.

Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
again.

What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most
of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less
the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized
truck frames. Go figure ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 8:58 AM


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1a9a2ba6-a133-4b31-a70f-c754750ef38d@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 22, 10:47 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> SNIP of good stuff
>
> Leon, thanks for the insight. I appreciate an intelligent look from a
> guy with your personal experience. You make a lot of good points, and
> I got a good chuckle out of the fact that your take was that the fact
> was the reason domestic truck parts were so plentiful was because they
> were so needed.
>
> How true is that?

And to add to that Robert, a friend that I grew up with was all GM in mind
set as was I. Our parents only bought GM products. He however ended up
going to work for a neighbor at a Ford dealership, I eventually ended up
working with GM products. He moved up to to eventually become the service
manager at the Ford truck center and commented ond day that Ford is
targeting a group of people that are not picky. They simply want a vehicle
that could get them from point A to point B reliably and one that could be
repaired quickly when it broke down. That was back in the early 90's.
I guess the thing that really make me start looking at imports more
seriousely was when out dealership built a new facility close to the Toyota
dealership. We also added Isuzu to our offerings. As I have previousely
mentioned vwhen isiting with the Toyota parts manager and seeing the few
items in their warranty scrap pile and our Isuzu scrap pile as compared to
our Oldsmobile warranty scrap pile I had a pretty good indicator as to which
car companies were building the more reliable product. When a vehicle is
under warranty the owner seldom hesitates to complain about a problem.
Literally 40% of our Oldsmobile mechanical repair business was for warranty
reasons and our shop had a very good reputation.
I bought my wife an Acura in 1989, our first import and it was the first
small car that we easily put over 100k miles on with out any break downs.
IIRC I had to replace the radiator after the 100k mark. Same goes for the
87 Isuzu Trooper, no break downs in the 10 years that I drove it.
While new vehicles are exciting as you well know when you work with the
vehicles or nail guns, saws, etc. day in and day out you loose the
enthusiasm and start to put much more emphysis on reliability and quality.

>
> My last two trucks have been Fords, simply because they "had the deal"
> and were more comfortable to me than the GM products. This is my 14th
> truck, and personally I really don't care what brand I drive as long
> as it wears well and is reliable. Overall I have been lucky with my
> last 3 Fords, but the best truck I ever owned was a '75 GMC "Heavy
> Half" with a three on the tree and a Olds made 350 engine in it.

Ahhh the old gold "Rocket" engine or was it painted black? Back when GM's
different product lines actually designed and built their on engines, the
Olds engine was hard to beat.

>
> I have never owned a foreign made truck, but like a lot of my
> compatriots, we have had enough of shoddy domestic products. I was
> leaning towards the Nissan Titan when I thought I might buying a new
> truck, but their repair record scared me off.

I looked at the Nissan also, my nephiew "owned" one after owning a GMC and 3
previous Dodges. Each of the Dodges left him high and dry so he decided to
try the GMC. He loved it as always did what he needed it to do and it never
had major problems like the Dodges did. Then he bought the Titan and was
very unhappy with the gas mileage. While none of them get great mileage I
can say that I am happy the the Tundra gets 20 mph on the highway with the
5.7 whaich was the same as the 97 Chevy with the 5.0 engine and 150 less hp.
In town I now get a consistant 14.5-15-8 mpg as compared to the 13-14 on
the old Chevy.

>
> I was in a newer Tundra not too long ago, and while I don't know how
> well it will do as a work truck, the truck cab was like being in a
> small, airtight sound studio. It was QUIET, really comfortable,
> looked nice, and the AC blew cold. Same crappy gas mileage as my
> Ford, but the ride was really comfortable and solid. I liked it a
> lot. It felt like you wanted your truck to feel, not like a delivery
> wagon.

Tha tis exactly what put me in the Tundra.

>
> My amigo paid his $35K for it, but he only uses it for light work.
> Here's hint of the difference: my truck is PACKED with tools and odds
> and end of repair crap. In his truck tool box, he still has room for
> his small bag of golf clubs.

>
> I will personally feel better about the Toyotas as work trucks when I
> see them with head racks for ladders, bed liners, tool boxes and bed
> side tool boxes, maybe pulling around a small skid steer loader, and/
> or any of the other job specific hardware on the trucks that let you
> know their job is work.

I really think you are going to see this happen, I think Toyota wants their
cut of the pie.

>
> Like you, I will pay more if I think I am getting more. But the jury
> is still out. And as before, you can bet I will be looking somewhere
> else than the big three next time I buy.
>
> Thanks again for the insight.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>

Rn

Renata

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

21/08/2008 11:15 AM

Alas, Tim, the world is not quite so black and white as you see it.
Everything doesn't have to be either ultra high end or cheap crap.

And, when you're buying something that's supposed to have some fairly
decent level of quality that no longer does (e.g. Delta, made in
China), but they still want their premium price (though not the $ of
the ultra high end stuff, but not cheap), it's problematic.

GMs problems, even from a cursory look-see appear to go well beyond
those #^%*$ unions.

We're not living inside a computer w/it's limitations to 1 and 0.

Renata


On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:11:38 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>>>>
>>> Wow, what a shock, free markets actually work??? The anti-globalist,
>>> anti-trade sentiment one frequently hears (especially here) is
>>> foolish. The Chinese/Indian/Sri Lankan/Taiwanese... "cheap" labor
>>> advantage was/is temporary. As these nations continue to participate
>>> in global markets and thereby become more wealthy, their average
>>> salaries will - in currency adjusted terms - start to converge to be
>>> around the same as everyone else's. Sooner or later, people working in
>>> market economies want the same things the wealthy Westerners do - a
>>> nice car, a house, air conditioning, an education, etc. Wage inflation
>>> has already hit Indian IT outsourcing and it is inevitable in China's
>>> manufacturing sector. The only thing that can stop it is violent
>>> suppression by their government (possible) or an invasion by a foreign
>>> power (unlikely).
>>
>> Tim, I agree in principle but the reality is it is very difficult to
>> bring anything back. When a successful and efficient manufacturing
>> facility is closed in favor of moving offshore, many times the state
>> of depreciation expense amortization and the present value of the
>> tooling is such that, if lost, it is rare to be able of afford to come
>> back, at least within a generation.
>>
>> I was successful for many reasons. Well trained and efficient work
>> force, reasonable labor costs, good supply chain management, great
>> imbedded product knowledge, and a very reasonable depreciation expense
>> component of the overhead. If closed and all lost or made obselete,
>> the cost of retooling and equiping would cause depreciation expense to
>> be about four times what it was. That alone would put me out of the
>> running not to mention the impact of the lost imbedded knowledge.
>
>That's clearly true. But I'd suggest - at least at the Big Picture level -
>that there will always be a demand for high value/quality goods and
>people will pay a premium for it. For example, my first passion in
>life is not woodworking but traditional B&W silver chemical photography.
>My field camera is a hand made wooden box (Honduran quarter sawn mahogany and
>shiny brass) that I paid a *lot* for. Why? Because it is a superbly
>executed instrument that nothing else can touch in its class. It does
>thing that *no* digital camera, at any price can do (including the
>$40K Hasselblad H-39). The manufacturer, Wisner, has a nice little
>high end business, building the "best" of something for people who
>know the difference. So, while mass manufacturing will migrate to
>the lowest cost producer (in a commodity market, the lowest cost
>producer always win), I believe there will always be room for crafstmen
>to make Ferraris, Steinways, and so on.
>
>>
>> So maybe in another generation that equilibrium you describe will be a
>> reality. In the meantime, I hope this Delta initiative will be a
>> success.
>
>I think it is happening already and a lot faster than many people
>realize. Indian IT outsourcing is taking a real hit because of
>wage inflation. Europeans are starting to build factories
>here in the US. For the moment this is because of the Dollar/Euro
>ratio. But in the not so distant future I think all this new
>technology and the success of global trade and markets is going
>to drive work to be done by whoever does it *best* at a fairly
>constant (currency adjusted) price. I too hope that Delta succeeds
>here, but not because "The flag is back" but because I love seeing
>high quality anything being made ... no matter where and by whom.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 11:59 AM


"John Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Swingman wrote:
>> http://blogs.taunton.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=fw-editorsblog&entry=291
>>
>>
> Did you note the comment that the only thing the new saw has in common
> with the classic Unisaw is its name.


I did, I wonder if the Beismeyer and or Unifence is gone.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 7:04 AM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ...
>> I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to
>> find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make
>> the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing
>> and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something
>> like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas
>> prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe
>> and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering.
>> Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood
>> is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over
>> again.


BTY the hood switch is probably a plunge type switch that simply needs to be
adjusted, open the hood, locate the switch, and manually press it in while
some one else verifies if the warning goes away. If that works you can
probably very easily adjust it, if they are still using the older style
switch you simply pull it out further as the adjustment is a friction fit.
This might save you a trip back to the dealer to get rid of the annoyance.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

27/08/2008 10:59 AM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ('01 4.0l 6-cyl, auto, super cab, 4WD, AC) 65K miles. Apparently it
> was in an accident before I bought it (*NEW*) because the pait is
> all cracking and there is evidence of replaced parts. :-(


It is not uncommon for "new" vehicles to be delivered to the dealership
damaged and that does not mean that they were in an accident.
Way back in January of 1978, the first year that I worked for an Oldsmobile
dealer our body shop and the Oldsmobile rep were inspecting the roof on a
new Cutlass. Setting on top of the roof panel was a huge hunk of ice that
apparently had some road debris mixed in. The hunk of ice had been sliding
around and literally "sanded?" a hole in the roof of the car. You had to
see it to believe it. The transport driver brought it to our attention that
the seats were wet and the headliner was soaking wet.

We also saw a quarter panel that had been ground down so thin that you could
push it in with your finger. This vehicle was also straight off the trans
port truck with factory paint.

Both the above mentioned vehicles required major panel replacements.

Then there is the very common damaged caused by hail storms that will damage
hundreds of new vehicles setting on the dealers lot. While minor dents can
be repaired that type of repair soon becomes more expensive that replacing a
bolt on panel or fender.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

29/08/2008 7:07 PM


"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Not true. If it has been damaged more than some percentage of its
>> > value (depends on state, but is ueuslly quite low 5% where I was at
>> > the time, IIRC), it cannot be sold as new. It must be sold as
>> > rebuilt.
>> >
>> >> Very often however if the damage is severe enough the insurance
>> >> company
>> >> will
>> >> total or purchase the new vehicle. They realize that a new car with a
>> >> lot
>> >> of repaired damage is not going to sell.
>> >
>> > If it's not disclosed, it may. :-(
>>
>> If the dealer wants to get paid for the repair it would be disclosed.
>
> *IF*. The fact is that the dealer doesn't get paid.

Uh, yeah, the dealer gets paid, it was one of my responsibilities that he
did. Being in management in the body shop no work was performed until the
insurance company approved the cost to repair. Now minor scratches or
molding digs were typically absorbed by the dealer as it cost more in time
to have the unit setting and not being available for sale.



sS

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal)

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 9:15 PM

"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> krw <[email protected]> writes:
>>>In article <3873a9ac-db26-4f79-b3c6-
>>>[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>>says...
>>>> On Aug 23, 7:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Normally empty but with about 125 bf of walnut 3 people and luggage
>>>> > from
>>>> > Arkansas to Houston, about 19.5 mpg.
>>>>
>>>> Wow... can't beat that! Empty, with the motor off, rolling downhill
>>>> the whole way with no one in it my F150 won't touch that.
>>>
>>>My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from
>>>Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont
>>>to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash.
>>>My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good
>>>thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
>>
>> My ranger averages 23.2mpg lifetime (92,000 miles). I got close to
>> 25mpg with a full load (higher than cab) from Vegas to Bay Area once
>> which I attributed to better aerodynamics due to the covered load.
>>
>> ('99 2.5l 4-cyl manual shortbed, no a/c)
>>
>> scot
>
>By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always
>gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air
>does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter
>and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage
>could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an
>85 or lower rating.

Over the tehachapi, and the pacheco pass, but the bulk of the route is flat
san joaquin and coyote valley driving.

scott

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 2:35 PM

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:24:45 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Frank Boettcher" wrote:
>
>> But it makes me feel good to see
>> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it
>> where
>> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>
>Near as I can tell, about the only thing Pentair didn't totally screw
>up was Hoffman electrical enclosures.
>
>Lew
>
Lew, Pentair is doing much better in the business they chose to remain
in that is the water business and the enclosure business. These fit
their business model a little better. Consolidation and globalization
work a lot better when globalization does not just mean send
everything to China, but, actually develop markets outside the U. S.
Those two groups are also more industrial and infrastructure related
and less retail in nature, unlike the tool group and the vehicle
service equipment group, both of which they ruined trying to apply a
business model that had no chance of working.

They went away from the original business model which was to acquire
underperforming companies with great names, leave them autonomous and
give local management the support to do what needed to be done. The
current management wants, it seems, to turn it into a G. E. on a
smaller scale. Not surprised at this, the current CEO is both ex G.
E. and ex McKinsey.

I think they will do well in the future, with most of the growth from
markets in Europe and Aisa, although one component of the business is
pool and spa which has been really negatively affected by the housing
downturn. If you can anticipate the timing of that turning around, it
would be a good stock to buy at that point. (disclosure, I own it).

But they get an F for their management of the tool group.

Frank

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

22/08/2008 11:51 AM


"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:

>>
>>
>
> When I said "truck", I really meant "SUV". I have driven a Tundra, and I
> agree that they are really well screwed together machines. Alas, an SUV
> serves my day-to-day purposes better than a pick-em-up truck. So, I think
> I am going to retire my '95 Tahoe (with which I was 98% happy) with a
> a new Nissan Pathfinder - which is much more to my liking than the
> new Tahoes with their endless list of useless "features" designed to
> grab the soccer mom crowd and of no value at all when hauling wood, skis,
> scuba tanks, and so forth. What's really astonishing is that when I
> ask the Chevy dealers to get me a base model vehicle with only a
> few options, their almost universal response is "we don't bring them
> in that way." OK, and I don't buy them any other way. Still ... they
> are knocking $10K off the price these days which means the Tahoe - even
> pimped out some - is monetarily attractive.

Toyota now has the Tundra looking SUV but if you want smaller the Pathfinder
should fill the bill.

A little insight in to how the great pricing rebates work now days. Right
now production on new 08 vehicles have pretty much stopped. Incentives are
aimed at relieving dealer inventory. Even in the Spring when vehicles are
still in production the incentives will be better if you pick something off
of the dealers lot. Dealers to trade, but dealers usually do not want to
trade a vehicle that is more likely to sell for one that is less likely to
sell. Especially now with gas prices being inflated a stripped down unit
will be more desirable than a more expensive one with lots of options.
Dealerships typically do not own their vehicle inventory and pay a hefty
floor plan interest on a monthly basis to the manufacturers. I recall a 400
unit inventory of Oldsmobile's in the mid 80's typically cost the dealership
about $1.2 million per year just to have them sitting on the lot. With
today's prices that figure is probably 2 to 3 times higher, so the dealers
really want to turn their inventory rather than trade or order a new unit.
I "was" going to order my Tundra and put the order together with the dealer
but buying off the lot I got an additional $3,000 off of the already $4,000
incentive price reduction in July of last year. I would imagine most all
dealerships are offering better deals these days.

A cautionary word about American Nissan, their sales have been pretty poor
in the last few years and they have been partnered up with Renault IIRC.
Their financial situation is not great either although probably better than
the old big 3. Have you noticed how many times their flag ship car the
Maxima has been redesigned in the last 4 or 5 years?

One more hint that works well in a big city, use an online service like
kbb.com or autobytel.com to set up an appointment with a local dealership to
test drive a car. Typically the dealership will contact you with a price
that is based off of dealer invoice. This will afford you the opportunity
to buy any model on the lot without having to worry about different mark ups
on different models.

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

26/08/2008 1:08 PM


"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got
>> worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381
>> hp and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the
>> "media" has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if
>> the engine will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage
>> when burning premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as
>> premium is less than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I
>> buy. Premium fuels tend to also have better/more additives to keep the
>> engine running clean.
>
>
> The big V8 in a comparably laid-out Tundra gets within 1 MPG of my V6
> _Tacoma_!

>
> My Tacoma is also cheaper per mile on Premium than Regular gas. My manual
> recommends Premium fuel.

Uh huh, thanks to the on board computer, knock sensor and electronic timing
advance. Premium used with standard ignition vehicles was not much of a
help back in the late 70's and or early 80's unless the vehicle specifically
required it. Because premium fuel is less likely to create engine knock
than regular fuel the computer will advance ignition timing until it hears
engine knock/valve clatter through the knock sensor. With electronically
advanced ignition timing you normally should get better performance and gas
mileage when burning premium.

Mt

"Max"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 1:58 PM


"Tom G" <[email protected]> wrote

> Interesting story on NBC news last night. Seems that Chinese
> manufacturing is in trouble. They estimate that 30 percent of the
> factories in one province will shutter their doors in the next year.
> As one Chinese interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore".
> Labor laws in China have doubled the minimum wage in the last year or
> so. Many companies are moving their manufacturing sites to Vietnam
> and Indonesia as a result.
>
> Tom G.

Another factor in any decision to manufacture here or overseas is the
increasing cost of shipping.
Especially "heavy iron". <G>

Max

LM

"Lee Michaels"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 9:45 AM


"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My dear friend who was also a manufacturing superintendent for me
> called last night to let me know that the new Unisaw will be unveiled
> today at IWF and will have the "Made in America" badging.
>
> "How can that be?" I asked. Well, it seems that all those decisions I
> (we) fought against have been reversed. The Brazilian motor will be
> gone in favor of a Marathon. Those chinese castings will be replaced
> with castings from, in my opinion, the best all around foundry in the
> country, Waupaca. So, with fabrication and assembly in Jackson, TN,
> the content will meet the requirement for "Made in America".
>
> I expect it could be pricey. The cost benefit of a very efficient and
> nearly fully depreciated facility will not be there and I expect that
> all important overhead absorption volume will be down due to those
> disastrous decisions of the past. But it makes me feel good to see
> this happen, and I'm happy to see that B & D may actually get it where
> Pentair, didn't have a clue.
>
That seems surreal in an environment that worships sending off all our jobs
to China.

If in fact it would be a lot more expensive to manufacture it in the USA,
why did they choose to do it? Any reliable gossip on that?

And how about their recent policy shift on stocking parts for their old
tools. Any change there?


BA

B A R R Y

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

23/08/2008 10:58 AM

Leon wrote:
>
>
> I guess it all depends on what the local economy can afford. In Houston the
> ratio appears to be much greater, you see lots more new Tundra's than you
> see new Ford, GM and Dodge combined.

Tundras sell very, very well in New England, as well.

I thought this was funny...

Back in 2005, I shopped for a new truck. Smaller trucks, with a minimum
6' bed, 4WD, and "1-1/2" cabs fit my personal needs best. If I could
get it, I'd love a longer bed, but none are available in the US. I test
drove Rangers, Tacomas, Frontiers, Canyons, chose the best truck for me
and bought it.

About 9 months after I bought my truck, I noticed that Dodge Dakotas
were still made! I had totally forgotten that Dodge made a smaller
truck. <G> I drive by a large Dodge dealer several times daily, but
the front yard was always lined with Hemi-Rams and Magnums!

I doubt the Dakota would have changed my final results, but I thought it
silly that a serious truck buyer wasn't aware the truck existed. What a
marketing plan...

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to Frank Boettcher on 20/08/2008 7:23 AM

20/08/2008 6:42 PM

"Tom G" wrote:


> As one Chinese interviewee stated "There's no cheap labor, anymore".
> Labor laws in China have doubled the minimum wage in the last year
> or so. Many companies are moving their manufacturing sites to
> Vietnam and Indonesia as a result.


Years ago, Jack Welch, CEO of GE, made a rather tongue in cheek remark
about the world wide pursuit of low cost labor, something to the
effect that if you truly want the lowest labor cost, build the factory
on a barge, then tow it to the lowest cost labor pool.

When the pool moves, move the factory.

Using contract manufacturers pretty much accomplishes the same
objective.

Lew



You’ve reached the end of replies