UPSSUP says "A P47 cost twice as much initially as the Chev workhorse and the maintenence is extremely expensive and they went through engines at a pretty good clip. An engine cost 12K. So explain to me how it is cost effective to keep the P47's around in lieu of the Chev workhorse that will be like the old reliable 4.3 and run on the cheap for the next ten to fifteen years"
Indeed, the Chevy's are much cheaper, in every respect. The new 500's are road crazy, they bust the front springs so badly that they've had to replace all of them, have no safety equipment, i.e., airbag or a padded dash. The P47's had a Anti Slip Rearend, far more sophisticated than the old chevy, making them much safer to operate on slick roads. The P47 had independent front suspension, far superior in handling to a solid front axle. The Mercedes diesels in our building ran 200,000 miles on an engine, but we had a good Mercedes mechanic, maybe you didn't in your building. I've never seen a gas burner that got that lasted 200,000. However, the point of the whole topic, was that the company doesn't really care about fuel consumption as long as it is a cheap vehicle. You know, the big lie, we are a GREEN COMPANY. I think they are really just talking about profit when they say "green". And, then they point to that one electric package car out in California. 8 miles a gallon verses 21 miles a gallon. You figure how much savings that amounts to over 200,000 miles. You get what you pay for. You could replace the Sprinter engine every year for the money that is saved in fuel consumption when comparing the sprinter with the new 500. It's over $12,000 a year in additional cost just being burnt up by that big V8.
45 0r 78 --ever have to change the needle on the victrolla ?
