Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site trsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!mikey
From: mikey@trsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Re: Who is Liable, ad nauseum... - (nf)
Message-ID: <55200061@trsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-May-84 12:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: trsvax.55200061
Posted: Mon May 28 12:32:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 08:28:51 EDT
References: <146@oliven.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:oliven:-14600:trsvax:55200061:000:816
Nf-From: trsvax!mikey    May 28 11:32:00 1984

#R:oliven:-14600:trsvax:55200061:000:816
trsvax!mikey    May 28 11:32:00 1984



I disagree.  I have yet to see a Ford that the parking brake held in
reverse as well as it held in forward.  As for expecting Park to
hold the car stationary, in the owners manual doesn't it say that Park 
locks the car stationay???

I know I have gotten out of my car may times with the engine running.
Can YOU  tell me that you have never gotten out from behind the wheel
without shutting off the engine.  I always used to when I had two 68 mustangs,
but they were standard shift, and the pull type parking brake on them
was worthless at over 1 degree of slope.  If you have an automatic, I'm
sure you expect it to WORK, and it DOES  hold the car in Park.

I don't think Ford should be nailed on this one though, not when GM is getting
away with legal manslaughter on the 1980 X-body brakes.  

mikey at trsvax