DeLo Design, Use, Etc (Re: Delorean complex?)

["content22207" <brobertson@xxxx>]

Louie didn't compare to modern cars -- compared to cars its senior (by
up to 20 years), which ARE more simply engineered (which also makes
them less refined...)

I think a lot of DeLo fickleness comes from cars being driven too
little. Is unnatural for 22 year old cars to have 15K - 20K on
odometer. As I'm discovering with rehab on my shoulder, if something
isn't exercised regularly it very quickly loses ability to perform as
designed.

DeLo's seem to suffer a viscious cycle: car is driven too little,
which compromises integrity. A compromised component ultimately fails,
which scares owner and causes car to sit undriven even longer,
compromising integrity even further. Cycle repeats itself until car
has reputation of being unreliable etc.

Re: DeLo design -- remember, we're all driving around in glorified
prototypes. Product line was terminated long before maturity. Wonder
isn't that car has design flaws. Wonder is that it isn't riddled with
them! Is amazing DMC was able to come so close to the mark right out
starting gate, especially since this wasn't just a first year model,
but a totally new product.

Bill Robertson
#5939

>--- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "checksix3" <jetjock11@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> You gotta be kiddin me, the car has simple systems. Compared to a 
> modern car it's child play. Fickle is another story but fickle does 
> not imply complexity.
> 
> How can the car be simple and yet fickle? Thats even simpler: Bad 
> design and execution. Or bad maintenance during it's lifetime. 
> 
> But overly complex? Not even close. Complexity is in the brain of the 
> beholder, it's all a matter of how much you're willing to learn and 
> how much effort you put into keeping it from being fickle.
> 
> 
> >>The DeLorean is NOTHING at all like a good old simple American
> muscle car for the '60s or '70s. They're overly complex and EXTREMELY 
> fickle little machines.<<