Before anybody responds with the obvious, "yeah, but they will stock up on
the chips needed to maintain the cars!", let me offer my opinion of this.
I sell special purpose computer boards that are supposed to have a long
lifespan (5 to 10 years). These boards often cost about the same as a new
car and are sold by the thousands. Even so, it is very difficult to keep
the chips needed to support these boards for much beyond their ten-year
lifetime. Add in the current design methodologies of using the best chip
for each product (as opposed to standardizing on a small number of chips to
allow easier stockpiling) and it is easy to see that Paul's assertion is
correct. You will probably be able to source the chips down the road, but
it will be in the time-honored tradition of hunting through junkyards and
used part dealers. And it won't be as easy as sourcing a new water pump
(how DO you test the chip to see if it is still working properly??)
I agree with Paul. Don't plan on keeping these newer cars for much longer
than ten years. If you do, proceed at your own risk.
IMHO, of course.
Scott McKorkle
1978 MGB
1991 Saab 9000 (already with too many chips!)
----------
> From: wizardz <wizardz@maxinter.net>
> To: ATWEDITOR@aol.com
> Cc: mgs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Dont knock my LBC bud! I'd Worry about your's! Re: (was :
Shame on CU )
> Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 7:50 AM
>
> When ever someone 'puts down' my LBC's...
> I simply retort with ....
> "I'd like to see if your 'Honda' is still on the road in 30 years!"
>
> A new more recent thought concerning 'new' cars...
> Being an electronics and robotics design engineer for more than
> 25 years now, I see the rapid rate in which the electronics industry
> outdates and stops producing different integrated circuits ('chips')
> I predict most of the 'new' cars out there today won't be on the road
> 15-20 years from now...because the on board computers won't be
> able to be repaired!
>
> And guess what people! Many are going to have problems next year
> with idiot lights that won't turn off (maintainance schedules etc)
> because of the computer clocks post dating 2000!
>
>
> Paul Tegler
> 1973 BGT - Daily Driver
> Rat - 1980 Spitfire w/ O/D - in re-hab
> Punkin' - 1978 Spitfire - in Superb Shape!
> email: wizardz@toad.net http://www.teglerizer.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ATWEDITOR@aol.com <ATWEDITOR@aol.com>
> Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
> Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Shame on CU
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/26/99 8:02:56 PM, phbailey@earthlink.net writes:
>
> << Bob Howard wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:46:04 -0700 patrick bailey
> > <phbailey@earthlink.net> writes:
> > snip-- would surely be>bad- mouthing MGs after his experience,our cars
> > have a bad enough reputation among the general public - snip
> > >Pat
> > >
> > This week's Newsweek (Bill Gates on the cover) has an article on hot
> > wheels now or soon to be in the US market. "...Miata, a roadster that
> > evoked a bygone era of Triumphs and MGs, minus the huge repair bills"
is
> > from the article. Once you read the glowing reviews, check out the
advert
> > on p.4 to get an idea of their judgment.
> > Thoughtful of these guys to slander our 25+ year old vehicles.
> > Question--has anyone really _had_ a "huge repair bill" or is this a
> > perception caused by the annoying little repairs that get under one's
> > skin?
> >
> > Bob
>
> I couldn't agree more these cars are really more reliable and cheaper to
fix
> than new cars I feel the reputation is NOT deserved but has grown by
people
> who wern't likely to work on the cars themselves and didn't do the
required
> maintenance.It's funny but I usually get 2 responses when people comment
on
> my MG (1) Neat car! (2) I used to have one (or brother,uncle etc) and he
had
> nothing but trouble with ityadda yadda.I've had both my '79 B and my
wifes
> '89 Aerostar for 5 years(I had to get her the van so Icould get the B)
and I
> have spent over $2500 in repairs on the van $1400 tranny,$450 new
flywheel,
> $200 brakes TWICE !! plus other stuff and right now the starter just went
> out!!Now on the B I'll bet I haven't spent $500 on repairs clutch MC and
> slave $125 radiator $250 u-joints $45 So which car has been more
reliable?
> Also I,ve put over 50,000 miles on the B in those 5 years.New cars ARE
> generally more reliable than old cars BUT when something does go wrong
they
> cost a hell of a lot more to get repaired.I love explaining this to the
clods
> who bad-mouth LBCs.The problem as I see it today is that people aren't
> "motorists"anymore they just want a car to get from A to B as quickly as
> possible without any problems they look apon cars as appliances We on the
> other hand are a dying breed who take the road less traveled look at our
cars
> as friends who enjoy the open road I swear my car seems to like the
> twisties!!It just seems to run better than when flogging it on the
> freeways!When is the last time you heard of someone just going on a
sunday
> drive?Now everyone has to going someplace and the drive is just an
> inconvience.When I was akid we went on sunday drives and didn't have a
> destination just went for the adventure!I still do this I never know
where
> I'll end up and the lure of the open road is still out there for those of
us
> who seek it. >>
>
> When my 68 B-GT was t-boned by a Pontiac in '78 after 10 years of good
> although some times irritating service (read:electrics), I got a BMW
2002. A
> delight to drive when in shape, this car was a major education in how
much a
> person can pay to fix a car, especially a German car. After about three
> years and mucho dinero I sold it, and just in time according to a BMW
> aficionado who came to look at it. The rear shock towers in the trunk
were
> beginning to rust, leading inevitably to a major, major sheet metal
repair
> job.
> The next European car I bought was my 72 B. Ah, its good to have a car
you
> can understand most of the time.
>
> J Donoghue
> 72B
> 66 Mustang
|