Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TR\]\s+Planned\s+obsolescence\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TR\]\s+Planned\s+obsolescence\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TR] Planned obsolescence (score: 1): Author: "Paul Dorsey" <dorpaul@negia.net>; Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:00:41 -0500; You say these TR 3's originally were intended to last only seven years? Was that number intended or did it just turn out that way? Were American cars, at that time, built to last longer? What's the; /html/triumphs/2007-02/msg00328.html (7,250 bytes)
2. Re: [TR] Planned obsolescence (score: 1): Author: "John Macartney" <standardtriumph@btinternet.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:50:02 -0000; Paul, I don't think it was an obvious intention to design a car to last a specific number of years - and then to scrap it. There were a number of differing criteria, among which were: 1. The cars wer; /html/triumphs/2007-02/msg00353.html (9,034 bytes)
3. Re: [TR] Planned obsolescence (score: 1): Author: DLylis@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:32:55 EST; I was around and of driving age in the 60's in the Northeast and a 10 year old car was an old car in those days. I had a '51 Plymouth which was a "rusted clunker" in '63, helped a friend bring back a; /html/triumphs/2007-02/msg00355.html (7,339 bytes)
4. Re: [TR] Planned obsolescence (score: 1): Author: Dave1massey@cs.com; Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:44:26 EST; There were two forces in action here. The first is the fact that car buyers typically buy the lowest cast car that fits their need. So there was strong pressure to keep production costs down and thin; /html/triumphs/2007-02/msg00356.html (8,662 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]