On Thu, 9 Nov 1995 15:31:28 -0600 Maher, Steve (SD-MS) said:
>"Planned obsolescence" used to refer to poorly-designed American car
>bodies (I should know-- I have a '66 'Stang). Now, it's moved under the
>hood of nearly every car on the road IMHO. These cars are wonderful when
>they're new, and they DO last a lot longer before you have to do serious

yup. if the designs and materials of today's cars would last (with proper
maintenance) as the older, heavier, less-complicated designs of the 50's and
60's, you'd never have to buy another car (except for psychological reasons
... like keeping up with the Johnsons or some such). :)

and the car companies would go broke.

Porsche had designed an aluminum bodied car back in the early 70's, but was
talked out of it by some other car companies (and their own research) ...
it would never rust or corrode, and (unless you had a wreck) would never wear
out. so people would never buy a newer car. :)
(that's not ACTUALLY the reason they stated, but it's close enough to the
truth of the matter).

Then, Steve Johnson slobbered:
>Yes, but at what cost?!!  Now let's compare the price of a 1950's car (by
>todays

ok. a today-car costs about the same as a year's wages.

gee ... in the 1950's, a car cost about a 1950's year's wages.

funny thing about that. :)

>I also must disagree in the quality department where paint jobs are concerned.
>If newer cars are so wonderful, how come there have been several recalls on
>the paint jobs in recent years?

it just goes to show: a quick shower can never produce the quality of a deep
soaking bath. :)

joel