Quote:
Originally Posted by 91chevywt
It seems like the general consensus is, one man's junk is another man's treasure. The specifics seem to have no trend whatsoever. Someone calls out a specific design, and like clockwork another defends it.
A BAD design is very subjective, I don't know that you can quantify it. Even with concrete numbers, polling data, and public opinion. This does not indicate quality whatsoever. One person may call a car with hand-crank windows and a manual transmission a good design for its simplicity, another may call said car a poor design for its lack of innovation and features. Who is right?
|
See, I was wondering what the non-arguable stuff is. So far it's been a lot of subjective stuff.
The 4th gen window motor application is one of them. After 3 revisons they still suck. Same with the fuel sending unit. The '67 rear axle setup was so wheel-hoppy it broke rears. That's also a huge fail. The Eaton M90 coupler is kind of one, but the bigger fail is GM saying that you never need to change your supercharger oil... ever.
Cars that were cancelled and that you miss or cars that you just didn't think should get made isn't nearly the same thing.