Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

"Michael" <usenetreplies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1afba48c-746c-470f-ac03-5bf0ca95e07c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jun 19, 2:58 pm, es330td <es33...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
> which is a more reliable mode of trans****tation, a 1964 Mustang or a
> 1994 Mustang? If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
> turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
> which one would you pick?

I don't know much about 94 Mustangs, but I know a lot about 64 and 04
models.  And the 04 is dramatically more reliable.  You can count on
it to start and run.  And it will do this with only a thrice-annual
visit to the shop for an oil change.

On the other hand, there is no maintenance schedule on a 64 Mustang.
You work on it all the time.  You see, all the electronics in the
thing - and there is a ton - make the 04 Mustang far more reliable.
What's more, it needs far less maintenance, and far less regular
maintenance.

-----snip-----

Sorry to post this without reading the rest of the thread.

It appears that your experience with the 64½ Mustang is fairly recent.

There was indeed a maintenance schedule for your car, which IIRC was 
approximately quarterly after an initial visit that took place a little 
earlier.  A number of items on the list were semi-annual, annual, and 
bi-annual and the cars were quite reliable when maintained in accordance 
with the maintenence schedule.

I also once had a car that seemed to need constant tuning--a 70
MGB--untill 
I rebuilt the carbs and ignition using the complete and correct parts
kits. 
After that, it ran perfectly for so long that I nearly forgot how to work
on 
it.

Peter