Ryland3210

Yes. Both my rear indicators had deformed stalks as delivered by the dealer. The Buells have the advantage of a flexible stalk. I am still waiting for the MG replacements promised by the dealer 12 months ago. The lenses were amber instead of the original clear, so I changed both, and kept the originals in case I ever sell it to a purist, since I have lost confidence I will ever receive the replacements. Elsewhere in the forum there is a detailed discussion of the Buells.

Thanks, Gary. I thought the $26 price was extraordinarily high. I asked the dealer to check the price. There was no mistake. From where I live, they are an hour from home, and by far the closest. It happens I was close to them for other reasons, they had it in stock, and I was interested in getting finished on the project. You're right on, expediency was the key. Besides, a one time outlay of $26 is small potatoes in the scheme of things. I didn't publish the dealer's name on purpose. I have no problem with your linking it over. I'm sure the intentions were good. Who knows? Maybe some good will come out of it. If not, there's always entertainment value. regards, John

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I have been a pioneer in the machine tool and computer industry several times over, and have been under attack more than once as a result. When one threatens the status quo with new technology or new knowledge that is inconsistent with deeply held beliefs, the more confident vested interests will quietly go to work to adapt or copy. Those that feel threatened by the change and are insecure in their ability to adapt, noisily go on the attack to discredit the source of the perceived threat. There's an acronym for this negative approach to attempt to stall progress: FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. In sales strategies, as it goes, if you know your offering is inferior, FUD the opposition. I used to get really annoyed at unjust accusations, unfounded criticism, and negative attacks FUDing but never let it stop me. Long ago, I stopped getting annoyed when I figured out the motivation, and realized it comes from fear, weakness, or sometimes plain ignorance. To me, it's forgivable when it's out of desparation, rather than mean spirited. I was unaware of the link, but it reminds me that the destructive attacks aimed at me in the past usually were not made in my presence, with only one exception, which I quickly dispatched with the truth. In all the other cases, I heard of them from third parties after the fact, as is true in this case. The joy of seeking knowledge and helping others solve problems are my objectives. When publishing information, I am as careful as possible to base my findings on accurate data. I got involved in this problem because I thought my 20 years of experience in designing 2,000+ horsepower, 10,000 psi hydraulic machinery right down to the O-Ring grooves to contain that pressure might be helpful. I was intrigued by the various theories and solutions to the problem, and learned a few things along the way. Objective criticism based on good science is welcome, and I learn from that too. It makes the whole process more enjoyable for me, actually. As far my decision to spend the $26 goes, I'll gladly spend more than that at the drop of a hat to gain some useful information. It's nothing compared to the time I have put into this project. I certainly wasn't going to risk providing anything less than thorough information to people who might depend on it, and provide the data behind the conclusions I reach. It's possible that some individuals may not read what I'm writing carefully. Even if they do, when cherished beliefs or one's livelihood are challenged, the emotional filters can kick in to effect and alter the perception of what's being stated.

I can't certain without seeing a cross section, but here are some guidelines that I consider safe and conservative: If the gasket can be compressed to the point where the can bottoms out to the mating surface without the gasket mushrooming on its O.D., AND at that point is compressed to 70% of its original thickness or less, it probably will work fine.

Today, I removed the UFI filter, which had about 300 miles on it, and compared its gasket and groove to the original UFI which came with the bike, and to both new and old purolators. I discovered that the UFI design had changed from the date coded 16.01.03 filter which came with the bike and the date coded 29.08.05 I just purchased from the dealer two days ago. The UFI groove width was increased from 0.200/0.190 to 0.210/0.200 The UFI groove depth was increased from 0.206 to 0.225 The '03 gasket cross section was 120% of the groove cross section The '05 gasket cross section was 109% of the groove cross section The '03 gasket had a uniform cross section all the way around. The '05 gasket had 6 triangular bumps on the O.D. Since both gaskets have larger cross sections than the grooves, they cannot be squeezed until the can bottoms out to reach the theoretical 80.6% squeeze available. In fact, the '03 used gasket had mushroomed out both in the I.D. and O.D. directions. This would still be a problem, although lesser, with the '05 at 109%. In my opinion, although the '05 UFI has been improved over the '03 from the standpoint of not exceeding the groove capacity as much, it is still inconsistent with recognized good design principals. The '05 gasket width was less than the groove width, which is in the right direction, but the placement of bumps on the O.D. of the gasket to retain it in the groove would be better placed on the I.D., for reasons explained in the earlier post. In comparison, the Purolator equivalent filter retains the gasket by peened over metal tabs on the I.D. of the gasket, without a groove retaining wall against the I.D., so mushrooming does not occur as the gasket is compressed. Therefore, the full 68% squeeze is available. The mushrooming of the UFI gasket may account for the use of torque as the tightening method recommended by UFI, since tightening by the number of turns methods might result in wide variations in the amount of torque required caused by small dimensional variations in the filter can's stampings and gasket dimensions. Furthermore, since it is impossible to achieve even the theoretical maximum 80.6% squeeze without mushrooming, one has to tighten to the point of mushrooming the gasket to achieve reasonable squeeze percentages. I also maintain that the 10-12 newton meters (7.4 to 8.9 foot pounds) instruction on the UFI filter is hardly enough in my experience. For example, it takes much more than that to achieve the ¾ to 1 turn recommended by Purolator and other American makers, even though the gasket is not being mushroomed until it extrudes out between the groove walls and the block, as it does with the UFI. Another advantage of the Purolator design is that the entire gasket acts as a spring under compression over its thickness, whereas the UFI mushroom "cap" is much shorter. Therefore, the force against the block will diminish much faster for every turn the filter loosens (about 4:1) for the UFI than the Purolator. This, and the low torque spec both may account for the problems with loosening filters. UFI has changed the design between '03 and '05, perhaps to try to solve these problems. I do not think they have gone far enough. The groove is still too small for the gasket, and in the case of the gasket's bumps, the wrong method to retain it was chosen. Bottom line for me is that I'm sticking with the Purolator special order replacement at $13 for now. It's half the price and a better design. I feel I can tighten that with confidence the same way I have in the past countless times. I was able to reach about 9/10 of a turn on the Purolator using my usual ratchet with the correct filter socket for it. I stopped when I felt the torque was as high as I was comfortable with. Fram makes one also, on the shelf at $5.98 at the same local Advance Auto Parts store, but I have not looked at the gasket/groove design. When I get the chance, I'll saw them in half to see which has a better construction inside. Anyone want my brand new UFI 2328700 $26 filter complete with the original box? It's available for shipping cost plus $3 for the gift wrap.

I purchased a new UFI filter today. Cost me $26 and change. Ouch! I set up a fixture to apply a force compressing the gaskets of the new UFI and new Purolator. Here's what I found: Under compression, the Purolator measured 6463 pounds per inch, while the UFI measured 6365. Under relaxation, the Purolator measured 7180, while the UFI was at 7082. I consider these differences insignificant. An interesting difference is that the Purolator's gasket is held in place by peened over tabs pushing on the I.D. of the gasket, while the UFI had 6 triangular bumps on the O.D. of the gasket itself. As oil pressure is applied, the Purolator gasket will tend to expand uniformly to the outside of the filter's groove and stay there, whereas the UFI's gasket will adopt a wavy shape. This raises the possibility that the UFI gasket will move as pressure is increased and relax as it is decreased, unless the filter is screwed tight enough so friction will prevent that in spite of the oily surface. Suppose the gasket does move. If it does, static friction on the gasket preventing the filter from unscrewing is reduced or eliminated while the gasket is in motion. Of course, that still leaves the friction of the thread, but experience shows that has not prevented these filters from loosening. This new UFI filter had even less gasket proud of the can than the filter I reported on at the beginning of this thread. It measured 0.054", corresponding to 80.6% squeeze if it is screwed all the way to bottom out, whereas the Purolator gasket and groove depth both measured within 0.001 of the previous filter, and like the previous one, was 0.080" proud of the can. Next, I'm going to pull the original UFI filter back out of the engine and having a look at how much the gasket has been deformed, if any, and to see if the UFI design has changed in the new one.

Thanks, Gary. Yup, I've had good luck with Swage-Lock, and also with Parker's. Is the port on the block the type with the O-Ring chamfer, as is used on SAE hydraulic ports, or is it set up for the Dowty type face sealing washers? If it's any trouble to provide these details, no problem, I'll find out when I take the fitting out.

Thanks, Ratchethack. I now have the special order Purolator version of the UFI filter. Next step is to exchange the filters. I'll see if I can come up with a way to find out what grade of elastomer UFI and Purolator use in the process. Measuring relative durometer would be straightforward, except I'm concerned the UFI gasket may have taken a compression set by the time I check it. Therefore I hope to persuade my local dealer to let me measure a virgin gasket. If not, I suppose I can afford to buy the filter for the sake of science. As to field trials, my plan is to install a pressure guage beforehand where I can watch it like a hawk for a while, while riding.

Thanks for the kind words, Gary. In my last post I asked for your thoughts on copper tubing as a pressure guage line-any comment?

I wasn't so lucky. There was no leakage at first, probably because I tighten filters to the high end of the recommended range of turns, so I drove off. I spotted the oil pressure dropping about 50 feet out of my driveway. The driveway is 900 feet long. On the way back to my garage, I looked for the oil track. It had started about 400 feet out of the garage. If I hadn't had the habit of keeping my eagle eye on the guage for a while after I change oil, major damage might have been done. Now I have another good habit. By the way, it was a Purolator filter that had let go of the gasket on its way off the engine. I still like that brand, and blame myself for not being diligent. I realized I was setting myself up for justified chastisement for negligence by posting this episode, but I'm glad to have my ego bruised if it will save another rider a blown engine.

Thanks much for this goldmine! John I've thought of using small diameter brake lines with compression fittings. Had good luck with 3/16 diameter on air bags. No leaks, but rust is a factor. They're off the shelf, but what do you think of copper tubing with compression fittings? I too do not want to rely on nylon.

Well, you can't see the filter from inside a car either. Nothing wrong with belts and suspenders on something so critical. I'll be looking for a way to elegantly connect up a pressure guage. Here's one for the books: Once, and only once, it happened that the gasket stuck to the block. I didn't notice that because of where it was located. Nor did I notice it missing on the used filter taken off, probably because it never happened to me before in decades of changing filters, and because it was covered with dirty oil. Started the car, and made sure the pressure built up OK, as always. Next morning, we took off up the road. I have a habit of checking the pressure guage frequently, especially after an oil change. After driving about 1200 feet, pressure dropped off. Stopped the car immediately. I found that the double gaskets had held pressure for a while, about 800 feet, then extruded out, and emptied most of the sump in a matter of seconds. Interestingly the guage told the story while the idiot light stayed off until I shut down the engine. Since then, I check every filter I take off to make sure the gasket comes with it!

Ah yes, self energizing is useful, so long as there is no extrusion. That's where having any gap between the metal faces small enough (not necessarily zero, unless one is at 6,000 psi) is vital. I'm certainly not advocating torqueing beyond metal to metal contact to the point of causing serious distortion of the internal parts. Nor do I advocate compression to gap elimination if a gasket stands proud of the filter base so far that doing so would cause compression failure of the seal. In the case of the filters I have measured so far, that is not a concern. I'm not familiar with spin on filters in the 3,000 psi range. The one's I've designed into systems have a screwed in heavy wall thickness machined filter container that has an O-ring seal to the housing. Low pressure return line filtration keeps contamination from getting back into the sump. Pump inlet filters are often nothing more than screens or cartridge filter rated at 100 -125 microns to avoid cavitating the pumps. On better systems, especially where proportional or servo valves are used, high pressure, non-bypass filters rated at as fine as 3 micron absolute protect expensive components from damage. In the machine tool industry, reputable machine builders always include high pressure filtration along with coarse filtration on pump inlets, but not always return line filtration. Over the last several years, more and more add low pressure auxiliary filtration loops recirculating the reservoir fluid constantly through relatively large disposable filters rated at 3-10 micron. It's well understood and accepted today that 6 micron (nominal) or better filtration is required for long term life. In comparison, typical filters used in automotive applications are usually 15 micron (nominal) or even coarser. On balance, I place somewhat more credibility on the filter maker's recommendations than I do the motor's. One exception to this is the torque spec on the UFI filters, which I consider surprisingly low. When I read about all the problems with them coming loose, I got interested. It's generally risky or even dangerous in my view to accept anything on authority unless it seems consistent with common sense, experience, and the laws of physics. One of the things I enjoy is in understanding why things fail or work. I'll sometimes spend a ridiculous amount of time researching, calculating, and analyzing, especially if it will save the life of a machine I depend on or consider a "friend". Regarding: "Don't worry in the least about a thin film of oil working under the face of the seal. A minimum of contact is all that is required to acheive a positive seal." Maybe so, in an application where pressure is always maintained, but what if pressure cycles from zero to perhaps 75 psi on startup and back to zero when the engine is shut down. I can't help but feel the consequent squeezing and relaxation of the seal does it no good. I've personally seen plenty of seals fail for that reason if the extrusion gap was too large or the seal was not sufficiently squeezed mechanically due to faulty installation or design.

I wasn't suggesting tightening .07 turns past metal to metal contact. The measurements indicate that 1.07 turns are required to reach that point.

In high pressure applications, for example hydraulic systems with system pressure of 3,000 psi, elimination of the extrusion gap is desirable. At 6,000 psi, it is essential when using O-rings of 70 or 90 durometer. Of course, oil filters for these applications are a far cry from sheet metal cans used at 50-100 psi. Whether bottoming out is desirable or necessary depends on the filter base design. I find it interesting the in the case of the UFI and Purolator filters I've measured, bottoming out the UFI would require slightly over 1 turn, quite close to the 3/4 to 1 turn spec'd by Purolator. Based on what I know so far, I plan on tightening up the next UFI filter I use (if I ever do) to bottom it out at 1.07 turns. I should be able to feel the sudden increase in torque required. At that point, I know I'm not crushing the gasket any farther, so any additional turning will preload the metal base and increase prevailing torque, which I view as a good thing. There will also be no extrusion gap. Incidentally, when installing the Purolator, I was surprised to see some metal chips in its female thread. This is on the outlet side of the filter, which goes right into the engine. I cleaned it out with a cloth, and recommend checking filters for this, no matter what make they are.

Yes, the Shore A scale is used on softer rubbers. There are other scales for plastics. Elastomers come in various degrees of hardness. I am most familiar with O-rings. Typically, manufacturers will offer 70 durometer for most applications, and 90 durometer (harder) for high pressure applications. Today, I changed the filter on my wife's Jeep. It was also a Purolator. The cross section of the gasket was the same as the filter I reported on before, and so was the distance it protruded above the metal base. On the can, it said to tighten it between 3/4 and 1 turn. I found that it takes quite a bit of muscle to get to 1 turn, even though I used a foot long ratchet on it and the gasket was lubricated with engine oil. Given the pitch of the thread, it would not be bottoming out until just over 1-1/4 turns. My guess is that the 1-1/4 turn limit is intended to prevent crushing the gasket by an overzealous installer. If the filter is bottomed out, there is no gap for the gasket to extrude though under high pressure conditions. If it is not bottomed out, the geometry of the gasket's cross section and its hardness determine the max pressure it will contain. It seems to me that if the gasket is not under sufficient compression and/or is not hard enough to prevent leakage, there could be condition where a thin film of oil is squeezing out between the gasket and block. At that point, only the friction of the thread prevents the filter from loosening, as the gasket "floats" on the oil film. John

I recently purchased a Purolator filter with the same basic specs as the UFI 2328700 which came with my '04 Cafe Sport. It was interesting to find significant differences in the gasket dimensions. The UFI measured 0.22 wide by 0.250 thick. The Purolator measured 0.16 wide by 0.255 thick. The UFI stood 0.067 proud of the metal can. The Purolator stood 0.080 proud. All measurements in inches. Since the thread pitch is 1/16", the UFI would bottom out in 1.07 turns past contact, assuming negligible deflection of the metal base of the filter. The Purolator would bottom on in 1.28 turns. If both filters are tightened the same number of turns, the Purolator's gasket will develop 37.5% higher contact pressure with the block, assuming the same durometer elastomer is used. If both filters are tightened until they bottom out on the can, the Purolator will develop 69% squeeze, whereas the UFI will develop 73%. Conclusion: Assuming both gaskets are of the same durometer, in all three cases,,regardless of whether tightening is by turns or torque or until bottomed out, the UFI gasket develops lower sealing pressure. Moreover, the prevailing torque generated by the gasket preventing loosening in the case of tightening until bottoming out is less in the case of the UFI design. If the UFI uses a higher durometer material (I have not compared the two yet), if tightened using the torque method, all other things being equal, it will still generate 37% lower sealing pressure because it has a higher projected area. It might generate higher prevailing torque and sealing pressure than the Purolator, but that would require a considerably harder material than the fairly stiff Purolator filter. I expect to change my filter shortly, and I'll compare the durometers when that happens. I didn't meaure that when I inspected the UFI filter. My recollection is that it was pretty soft, but I won't be sure until I check it again. I'd be interested if anyone out there knows the durometer of the UFI gasket and/or Purolator's standard.

Hey, Mattress, I've been travelling, hence the delay in response. Yeah, I wonder what Perot has been up to. As I recall, he was a gadfly on GM's board when they bought his company, EDS, for billions, then paid him more billions (I think it was 4, but not sure) to go away. It was after he had that war chest that he ran for President, but quiet since then. It's been a while. My guess is that he is quietly involved in some form of altruistic activity, or helping startups with money and advice. Thanks for the info on the QLT sensor. I've heard of resistivity, conductance, capacitance, inductance, emissivity, diffusivity, dialectric constant, but never permittivity. I wonder if its a combination of the others conceived of by the makers, sort like when a new drug is promoted to help with a new malady, and the malady is given a Latin name, which when translated, merely describes the symptom. It's interesting to think there is a corellation between electrical characteristics and "quality". Perhaps it has something to do with acid buildup from carbonic acid, or water absorption. regards, John

I don't remember the Viet Cong story, but it wouldn't surprise me. I admired the fact that when some of his employees were kidnapped in Lebanon, he didn't wait for the diplomats to figure out how to save them. He went there personally, took charge, and did what it took to get his guys out. He picked a running mate because of the man's character and heroism. Too bad the guy was poor at expressing himself. Then quit, changed his mind to continue running when his supporters pleaded with him. In spite of that, as I recall he won an amazing 20% of the vote. I voted for him, knowing he would probably lose. I absolutely object to the argument some friends told me that I was wasting my vote. To me that's the biggest problem with the American voting public-voting for the lesser of two evils like lemmings, instead of the candidate that really represents the way they would like things to be. To me that is indeed wasting one's vote. Its why we always have one of the two major parties winning, and also why it gets harder and harder to tell the difference. Perot was probably our last chance to have any real change in direction. That is towards ever bigger government, exponential deficits, fiscal bankruptcy, more and more bureacracy with its constantly increasing tax burden and infringement on our independence and freedom to choose. Perot was not a kook in my opinion. He simply looked like one because he told it like it was, tried to educate the public in basic economics, and made his decisions and pitch to the public based on ethics and character. Of course, that's the opposite of a typical politician's approach to the public, which is why he came across as so unusual.

I have two memorable childhood moments. When I was 4 years old, living in Newark, as I came out of the candy store, a Harley rider pulled up to the curb. It was 1949. He was wearing complete white leathers, fringes all over, western style, lots of silver buttons with blue gemlike inserts, as did the bike. The bike was white with blue trim, tassels on the grips, etc. No helmet, a cap like Marlon Brando wore in "The Wild Ones". The image of him kickstarting the big monster (to a 4 year old, it was huge) and roaring off down the street, sticks in my mind to this day. I still have the crayon drawing I made later on. The next happened when I was 15. The guy across the street had drug the Harley he had mothballed when he got married out of his garage, cleaned up and got it running. It was a full dress beauty. He took me to High School on it, and I was totally hooked. There was no consideration or discussion of helmets back then, just the blast of wind, rumble of the open exhaust, hanging on for dear life. That was it. I was hooked for the rest of my life. Never stopped riding when my kids came along, and glad of it. I like to remind them when they get too serious, in life "Ya gotta have fun!". What the hell, it doesn't last forever anyway, I say to myself.

I also would add Texaco Havoline to that list. There are some brands that have been around a long time, not majors, and that's where I saw the problem. Elsewhere there was a post by a respected authority recommending Shell Rotella, with backup objective data. Since then, it's been Valvoline, Havoline and Shell Rotella for me. I've read many good things about Redline, and might go for that for gearbox applications if it were easy for me to pick up off the local shelf. However, I figure that the gearbox and final drive will outlast the engine by many miles and years the way I drive with conventional oils and the Moly additive on top, so I don't see a real advantage.

Though the difference is small, I'm sure the molecules are not identical in size. It's been too many years since I took P Chem to recall what the distance is between these nuclei, or any others for that matter, and I'm too lazy to crack my old textbooks. Is it possible the bonding energies are such that the N2 molecules are actually larger than the more massive O2 as some have claimes?

Perot was right: Remember him warning about the "big sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico? Later, Mexicans complained they were losing jobs to China, so they moved up the technology food chain to take those jobs down south. Mexico was the tip of the iceberg. You're absolutely right that the real price hasn't hit home yet. Eventually when they have enough economic power or get sick of buying what is becoming junk treasury bills from a country being run further into bankruptcy by our leaders , the Chinese will revalue their currency, prices for their goods will go up. When Americans start looking for those high paying manufacturing jobs, they won't be there, nor are they ever coming back. Just one example: there is such a glut of used die casting machines from liquidated companies, the sell for less than the salvage value of the steel. As the Chinese buy U.S. treasury bills they prop up the currency, which keeps their products cheap over here. When that stops, get ready for a major devaluation of the dollar. By the way, I laugh when I hear about how other currencies are getting stronger against the dollar. The reality is the dollar is weakening against virtually every currency except China's, and that's fixed. It's not only the consumer to blame. They are doing what they believe is in their own best interest. The major problem is fiscal mismanagement on an unprecedented scale by the Federal government, Republicans and Democrats alike. They are mortgaging the country's future at an astonishing rate, and appear totally inept or negligent regarding the U.S. economic base. My last comment, and I'll shut up: Remember when Harley was saved by a temporary import duty on Japanese motorcycles? Ask yourself what motivation Washington has now for suggesting to the Chinese that they allow their currency to rise against the dollar (which the Chinese have refused), instead of imposing an import duty? This is not rocket science. With an import duty which Washington can do at will, consumer prices rise and the difference goes to Washington to help with the deficit. With an increase in the value of Chinese currency, the difference goes to Beijing. Oh, I almost forgot: Clinton said his opening of the doors to U.S. markets wide open would be good for the U.S. because China was going to buy lots of corn and computers. Funny things didn't work out that way. IBM, Dell moved their PC production to China shortly thereafter, and I would not be surprised if all the computers for sale over here are made there. Hope the Chinese like our corn. Couldn't have been a big boom for the corn farmers, since so much of it is being used for ethanol these days.

I have heard before that nitrogen leaks less than oxygen because it has bigger molecules. Nitrogen has an atomic number of 14 versus oxygen's 16. In air, both are diatomic, so it seems to me that belief is illogical. Helium, an inert gas, has a much lower atomic number (I think it is 4), and is monatomic. It is used for leak testing because leaks are then so much easier to detect, for example on air conditioning compressors. Its atoms are much smaller than either N2 or O2. Butyl rubber is used to line tires because it is less permeable than the casing rubber, but more expensive. So the leakage rate depends on how much the manufacturer wants to spend, or how light a high performance tire needs to be. As far as thermal stability is concerned, both nitrogen and oxygen obey the same relationships between volume, pressure and temperature under steady state (PV=nRT). However, for short term rapid changes in volume, as you might have hitting bumps or landing an aircraft, I recall the adiabatic (that is, without heat transfer) relationships are different. All this is standard freshman year college chemisty for those interested. I think the best reason for using nitrogen is corrosion inhibition simply because is likely comes from a dryer source than the typical air compressor, and doesn't "oxidize" rims. I wonder if the oxygen in air in some way combines with the hydrogen in the rubber compounds to form water?

I have been a supplier to Ford myself, though fortunately not in the commodity area. I have also seen my customers which were commodity suppliers to Ford go out of business one by one, but GM has been worse, promissing more business for a five year period to a select number of suppliers in return for set prices, then reneging after those suppliers made large investments in capital equipment to reduce cost and opening it right back up to whoever came up with the lowest price. Several were driven into liquidation as a result. I never meant to imply unions have too much power here today, although they clearly abused the power they had in the past. It still worked out before U.S. manufacturers did not have to face competition from the East. As one successful American supplier exec, Nick Gibbs of Gibbs Diecasting said, when asked how can one be profitable supplying parts to U.S. automakers, "you have to be able to shut them down". Then he added sympathetically, "these are desparate men". They feel compelled to cut their costs any way they can to stay competitive. The Europeans have far more historical experience protecting their indigenous suppliers, and customers are more loyal. The percentage of German made cars driven in Germany, for example, is far higher than American cars made here. There, local manufacturers can charge the prices they need to stay in business, even though they are unionized. Of course many of those laborers are Turks! How much does the average American care about where the jobs are that make the car he/she buys? Even Harley now buys parts from China that they once purchased here.